SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anant Vijay Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR

M.Cr.C.No. 21051/2016

Anant Vijay Soni,
S/o Shri Duli Chand Soni
Aged about 28 years
R/o 129, Shanti Nagar
District- Chhatarpur, M.P.
Petitioner
Vs

{Name-Redacted}, D/o {Name-Redacted}
{Age-Redacted},
R/o {Address-Redacted},
{Address-Redacted},
{Address-Redacted}
Respondent

Present: Hon’ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar

Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhisekh Arjaria, counsel for the respondent.

ORDER
(21-09-2017)

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. invoking inherent powers of the High Court has been filed for quashing of the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. filed by respondent {Name-Redacted} against the petitioner Anant Vijay Soni for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may briefly be stated thus: On 14.10.2015, respondent {Name-Redacted} filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner Anant Vijay Soni alleging that the respondent {Name-Redacted} had married one Rajesh Bele in the year, 2007; however, as their relationship soured, they divorced by mutual M.Cr.C.No.21051/2016 consent. In the month of December, 2008, petitioner came in contact with respondent. She got him employed as Advisor in the Birla Sunlife Insurance Company in which she was also working. Intimacy developed between the petitioner and the respondent and in the year, 2010 the petitioner put vermilion in the hair of the respondent. Thereafter, he started physically exploiting the respondent. The respondent lodged the first information report in P.S.-Mahila Thana, Bhopal against the petitioner, which was registered as offence no.33/2015 under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1) (12) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. It was also averred in the complaint that since 29.04.2015, petitioner Anant Vijay has been abusing and sending threatning messages to the victim on what’s app. On 05.05.2015, respondent {Name-Redacted} had gone to the Court premises at Bhopal in connection with the first information lodged by her. At that place, petitioner insulted her by making utterances referring to her caste. He beat the respondent and threatened that if she did not take the first information report back, he would kill her. The respondent complainant reported the matter to the Higher Authorities of police on 08.05.2015; however, no action was taken against the petitioner. The act of the petitioner is an offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC.

4. The trial Court recorded the statements of the complainant {Name-Redacted} and her witness Nirmal under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and the complaint was registered as Regular Trial No. 8187/2016.

5. The prayer for quashing of the aforesaid complaint has been made on behalf of the petitioner mainly on the following grounds. After the alleged incident on 02.05.2014, respondent {Name-Redacted} lodged a written report before the SHO, P.S.- AJAK, Habibganj, Bhopal on 08.08.2015. In the report dated 08.08.2015, the only allegations that have been made are that the petitioner filthily abused the victim and used words referring to her caste and threatened that if she did not M.Cr.C.No.21051/2016 take the first information report back, he would kill her. He has also been said to have bragged to her that he could buy off police by spending Rs.10,000/- to 20,000/-and taunted that she could not harm him by lodging the first information report. However, in the report dated 08.05.2015 made to the police, no mention has been made of the fact that the petitioner had assaulted the respondent. It has also been contended that it is the case of respondent/complainant that on 02.05.2015, she had gone to the Court premises to attend the Court because charge-sheet was to have been filed upon the first information report lodged by her; whereas, the record of the trial Court shows that the case was not fixed for 2 nd of May, 2015, at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact of the matter is that in the first information report lodged by the respondent earlier, she had alleged that the petitioner had physically exploited her for a period of little less than 5 years on false promise of marriage and had thereafter deserted her. In the criminal case registered upon the first information report, petitioner had moved High Court for anticipatory bail. The High Court had deemed it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Enraged by the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, respondent has concocted this false story of assault, threat and abuse in order to get the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, canceled. Upon the report made to the higher Authorities of police, Superintendent of Police, AJAK, Bhopal Range had conducted an enquiry and had submitted a report dated 14.08.2015 (copy whereof has been filed); wherein, he observed that the offence alleged by the respondent victim appears to be fabricated because there was sufficient security present on 02.05.2015 in the Court premises; however, the respondent did not report the matter to any of the security personnel present at that point of time. The statements given to the police by the respondent and the said independent witness Nirmal differ on material particulars. The respondent has been constantly trying to get the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner M.Cr.C.No.21051/2016 canceled; therefore, it appears that she has fabricated this false case. In these circumstances, it is clear that the respondent has lodged this false case against the petitioner with an ulterior motive with a view to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner; therefore, the case falls under the category no. 7 as enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors, AIR 1992 SC 604; therefore, the Court may exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has opposed the application inviting attention of the Court to the fact that the private complaint is supported by the statement of the respondent and independent witness Nirmal made in the Court under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner himself has admitted in the statements made to the police during the enquiry conducted in the matter that on 02.05.2015, he had gone to the Court premises at Bhopal, therefore, the argument that parties had no occasion to remain present in the Court premises on 05.05.2015 is not sustainable. It has further been submitted that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to stifle legitimate prosecution; therefore, it has been prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the authenticity of the copies of the documents namely the report made by the respondent to the police, copies of the statements made by the respondent and her witness Nirmal to the police during the enquiry and to the Court under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and the report made by the enquiry officer to higher police authorities.

8. On perusal of the record and due consideration of the rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must succeeds for the reasons hereinafter stated.

9. The background in which the present case arose is that the respondent was admittedly in a live-in relationship with the petitioner for a period of little less than 5 years between the 2010 and 2014.

M.Cr.C.No.21051/2016 Thereafter, their relationship deteriorated and break up occurred. The respondent lodged the first information report against the petitioner; whereon, an offence under Section 376 (1) of the IPC and various provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered by the police. The charge-sheet in the matter was filed and the charges were framed. The petitioner Anant Vijay Soni filed M.Cr.C. No. 6960/2015 and Cr.R. No. 2195/2015 in the High Court to quash the first information report and to set-aside the charges framed against him. Aforesaid two matters and the present M.Cr.C. were heard analogously by this Court. M.Cr.C. No. 6960/2015 and Cr.R. No.2195/2015 have been allowed today by this Court and the first information report has been quashed on the ground that the aforesaid was not a case of rape but was a case of live-in relationship between the two adult, consenting parties for their mutual sexual gratification, without any commitment to marry. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case. The respondent moved an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail on the basis of the incident alleged in this private complaint. The aforesaid application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 04.11.2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 8449/2015.

10. Moreover, it may be noted that the incident averred in the complaint is said to have occurred in the Court premises; however, the respondent does not seem to have reported the matter to any of the security personnel present in the Court or to the Court itself. At least none has been examined under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The incident occurred on 02.05.2015, the earliest report of the incident was made to P.S.- AJAK, Habibganj, Bhopal on 08.05.2015 i.e. after a delay of about 6 days. No explanation for the delay is forthcoming. In the report dated 08.05.2015, no mention has been made to any physical assault allegedly made by the petitioner upon the respondent. The element with regard to physical assault has been introduced for M.Cr.C.No.21051/2016 the first time in the private complaint made on 14.10.2015. The respondent kept on making several improvements over the original version as given in the report dated 08.05.2015 to the police, in the complaint made in the Court and thereafter in the statements made before the Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., the police authorities did not deem it appropriate to take any action against the petitioner on the report made by the respondent in respect of the present incident because after due enquiry, they were of the view that the complaint has been lodged for the sole purpose of getting the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by the High Court, canceled.

11. It may be noted here that the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Bhajanlal (supra) held as hereunder:

“In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art.226 or under S.482 or Cr.P.C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.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 F.I.R. 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 S.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 concerned Act (under which a criminal M.Cr.C.No.21051/2016 proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the agrieved party.

7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended 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.”

12. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent appears to be riled by the fact that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the earlier case; therefore, this false case has been instituted with an ulterior motive to get the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner canceled so that the respondent shall be able to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner for deserting her; as such, the present case squarely falls within the ambit of category no. 7 as enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra).

13. In aforesaid circumstances, allowing this private complaint to continue shall amount to abuse of process of the Court; therefore, in order to secure ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the same.

14. Consequently, this Miscellaneous Criminal Case is allowed and the complaint dated 14.10.2015 pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal as R.T. No. 8187/2016 ({Name-Redacted} Vs. Anant Vijay Soni) stands quashed.

(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation