Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vetal Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20712
1 MCRC-8475-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 19th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8475 of 2024
VETAL SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Ms. Bhavya
Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Kumar Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Aman Raghuwanshi - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No.20/2024 registered at Police Station Sirol,
District Gwalior for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 327 of IPC.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that an FIR was lodged by
respondent No.2 alleging that on 25.01.2024 at about 11:00 am he was
working in his plot situated in front of Narayan School, Phooti Colony and
that time, Betal Singh Gurjar/applicant came there and compelled him to stop
his work. He also hurled abuses in the name of mother and also demanded
Rs.2 lac for organizing liquor party. When he refused to do so, then he
assaulted him by kick and fists. On hearing his screams, his father Sanjeev
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20712
2 MCRC-8475-2024
Goyal and Rahul Goyal intervened in the matter. While leaving the place of
incident, applicant extended a threat that in case if they resume working on
the plot, then he would kill them. Accordingly, aforesaid crime has been
registered.
3. It is submitted that FIR has been lodged on false allegation. At the
time of incident, he was present in his house, which is evident from CCTV
footage. It is further submitted that a civil suit is pending between the parties
on the question of property dispute and accordingly, FIR in question has
been lodged with malafide intention.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. So far as question of plea of alibi is concerned, applicant has relied
upon CCTV footage of camera installed in his house. The date and time in
the DVR of CCTV cameras is fed manually and if somebody wants to create
a false evidence, then by feeding wrong date and time, scene can be recreated
to show that it was recorded at the time and on the date which is reflected in
the CCTV Footage. Therefore, CCTV Footage by itself is not a conclusive
proof unless and until it is proved in accordance with law.
6. Furthermore, it is well established principle of law that plea of alibi
is to be proved by accused by leading cogent evidence and this is the only
defence which cannot be proved by preponderance of the probabilities.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Shaikh Sattar Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2010) 8 SCC 430 has held that:-
35. Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay
upon the appellant. The appellant herein has miserably failed toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:207123 MCRC-8475-2024
bring on record any facts or circumstances which would make the
plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi had to be proved with absolute
certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the
presence of the appellant in the rented premises at the relevant
time. When a plea of alibi is raised by an accused it is for the
accused to establish the said plea by positive evidence which has
not been led in the present case. We may also notice here at this
stage the proposition of law laid down in Gurpreet Singh v. State
of Haryana as follows (SCC p. 27, para 20)“20. …….. This plea of alibi stands disbelieved by both
the courts and since the plea of alibi is a question of fact
and since both the courts concurrently found that fact
against the appellant, the accused, this Court in our
view, cannot on an appeal by special leave go behind
the abovenoted concurrent finding of fact.”
8. So far as malafides are concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of
Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346
has held as under:-
“9. “8. Exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in a case
of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section
does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only
saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before
the enactment of CrPC. It envisages three circumstances
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised,
namely, (i) to give effect to an order under CrPC, (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would
govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative
enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases
that may possibly arise. The courts, therefore, have
inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which
are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties
imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which
finds expression in the section which merely recognises and
preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts,
whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any
express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such
powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong
in the course of administration of justice on the principle of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20712
4 MCRC-8475-2024
quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id
sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a
person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot
exist). While exercising the powers under the section, the
court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of
the court exists for advancement of justice and if any
attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would
be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of
justice. In exercise of the powers the court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process
of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by
the report, the court may examine the question of fact.
When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to
look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged
and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations
are accepted in toto.
9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 :
(1960) 3 SCR 388] this Court summarised some categories
of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised
to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears
that there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations
in the first information report or complaint taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an
offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge. (AIR p. 869)
10. In dealing with the last category, it is important to
bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is
no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is
clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case
where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may
or may not support the accusations. When exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would
not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial
process should not be an instrument of oppression, or,
needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20712
5 MCRC-8475-2024
judicious in exercising discretion and should take all
relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands
of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any
person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an
instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of
exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC and the
categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its
power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604] . A note of
caution was, however, added that the power should be
exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as
follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
‘(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20712
6 MCRC-8475-2024
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.’
11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise.
The court must be careful to see that its decision, in
exercise of this power, is based on sound principles. The
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a
State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie
decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and
hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected
and produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be
seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of
course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to
cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any
stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC
305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and
Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 :
(1964) 1 Cri LJ 1].] It would not be proper for the High
Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of
all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction
would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a
conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would
be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude
that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When an
information is lodged at the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of
secondary importance. It is the material collected during
the investigation and evidence led in the court which
decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of
mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and
cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the
proceedings. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar
[1990 Supp SCC 686 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 142], State of Bihar
v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
192] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995)
6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , State of Kerala v.
O.C. Kuttan [(1999) 2 SCC 651 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 304] ,
State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 497] , Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
[(1997) 2 SCC 397 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 415], Satvinder Kaur
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(1999) 8 SCC 728 : 1999
SCC (Cri) 1503] and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
[(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] .]”
The above position was again reiterated in State of
Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [(2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:207127 MCRC-8475-2024
SCC (Cri) 539] , State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta
[(2004) 1 SCC 691 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 353] and State of
Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2005) 13 SCC 540 : (2006)
2 SCC (Cri) 272] , SCC pp. 547-50, paras 8-11.””
8. Furthermore, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India cannot appreciate the evidence or material collected
by police to hold as to whether material collected by police is reliable or not
?
9. The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 337 has held as under:-
“14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the impugned order and other material placed
on record, we are of the view that the High Court exceeded
the scope of its jurisdiction conferred under Section 482
CrPC, and quashed the proceedings. Even before the
investigation is completed by the investigating agency, the
High Court entertained the writ petition, and by virtue of
interim order granted by the High Court, further
investigation was stalled. Having regard to the allegations
made by the appellant/informant, whether the 2nd
respondent by clicking inappropriate pictures of the
appellant has blackmailed her or not, and further the 2nd
respondent has continued to interfere by calling Shoukin
Malik or not are the matters for investigation. In view of the
serious allegations made in the complaint, we are of the
view that the High Court should not have made a roving
inquiry while considering the application filed under
Section 482 CrPC. Though the learned counsel have made
elaborate submissions on various contentious issues, as we
are of the view that any observation or findings by this
Court, will affect the investigation and trial, we refrain from
recording any findings on such issues. From a perusal of
the order of the High Court, it is evident that the High
Court has got carried away by the agreement/settlement
arrived at, between the parties, and recorded a finding that
the physical relationship of the appellant with the 2nd
respondent was consensual. When it is the allegation of the
appellant, that such document itself is obtained under threat
and coercion, it is a matter to be investigated. Further, the
complaint of the appellant about interference by the 2nd
respondent by calling Shoukin Malik and further
interference is also a matter for investigation. By looking at
the contents of the complaint and the serious allegationsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:207128 MCRC-8475-2024
made against 2nd respondent, we are of the view that the
High Court has committed error in quashing the
proceedings.”
(Underline supplied)
10. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin &
Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 has held as under:-
“7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court at a
stage when the investigation was yet to be completed, is
completely incorrect and uncalled for ………..”
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 has held as under:-
“12. The counsel appearing for the appellant also drew our
attention to the same decision which is relied upon in the
impugned judgment by the High Court i.e. State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal. In the said decision, this Court held that it
may not be possible to lay down any specific guidelines or
watertight compartment as to when the power under
Section 482 CrPC could be or is to be exercised. This
Court, however, gave an exhaustive list of various kinds of
cases wherein such power could be exercised. In para 103
of the said judgment, this Court, however, hastened to add
that as a note of caution it must be stated that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases for the Court would not be justified in
embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first
information report or in the complaint and that the
extraordinary or the inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its
whim or caprice.”
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of
Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 has held as under:-
“5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:207129 MCRC-8475-2024
when approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding
will not appreciate the defence of the accused; neither
would it consider the veracity of the document(s) on which
the accused relies. However an exception has been carved
out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung v. Essem Chemical
Industries; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Harshendra
Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to the effect that in an
appropriate case where the document relied upon is a
public document or where veracity thereof is not disputed
by the complainant, the same can be considered.”
13. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh
reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under:-
“18. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not
or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation
would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial
Judge/Court. It is true that the Court should be circumspect
and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all
relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, otherwise, it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to
harass any person needlessly. At the same time, Section
482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure
without full-fledged enquiry. 19. Though the High Court
may exercise its power relating to cognizable offences to
prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, the power should be exercised
sparingly. For example, where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused or
allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence
or do not disclose commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused or where there is express legal
bar provided in any of the provisions of the Code or in any
other enactment under which a criminal proceeding is
initiated or sufficient material to show that the criminal
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private andSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:2071210 MCRC-8475-2024
personal grudge, the High Court may step in. 20. Though
the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482
are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its
exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and
the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. We make it clear that if the
allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the
offence of which cognizance has been taken by the
Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same
in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.”
14. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana ,
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under:;
“17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that
where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against
the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing
the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the
uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence
and make out a case against the accused, the Court would
be justified in quashing the proceedings.”
15. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 686 has held as under:-
“17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the
submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both
sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by
the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under
Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has recorded findings on
several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of
the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence
during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case,
went into the most minute details, on the allegations made
by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the
respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has
exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. 18. In our view, theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:2071211 MCRC-8475-2024
assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the
matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent
court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”
16. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Kunwar
Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 has held that a
detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 of CrPC is
not permissible and should not be done. In the case of Kunwar Singh (supra), the
Supreme Court held as under:-
“8……..At this stage, the High Court ought not to be
scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial
court would do in the course of the criminal trial after
evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has
exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry
into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The
FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia………..”
17. Similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in the cases of
Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 , Teeja Devi Vs.
State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221 , State of Orissa Vs. Ujjal
Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 , S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal
reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600 , Sangeeta Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 336 , Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC
460, Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in
(2012) 12 SCC 437 , M.N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9
SCC 682 .
18. Thus, it is clear that this Court can quash the proceedings only if
uncontroverted allegations do not make out a prima facie offence. This Court
cannot conduct a mini trial to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations.
19. If the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR are considered,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:20712
12 MCRC-8475-2024
then it is clear that cognizable offence has been made out, which does not
warrant quashment of the same.
20. Accordingly, application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Rashid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 11/28/2024
9:43:53 AM