1
Misc. Criminal Case No.11357/2019

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR

Misc. Criminal Case No.11357 of 2019

Pramod Ahirwar another

Vs.

State of M.P. another

_
Shri Ashish Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri R.S. Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent no.1/State.
Ms. Shikha Malik, learned counsel for the respondent
no.2.

ORDER

(26.03.2019)

Per Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J :

This Misc. Criminal Case under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the

petitioners for quashment of the FIR registered under Crime

No.293/2018 at Police Station Bandri, District Sagar for the

offence under Sections 376-D, 506 and 450 of the Indian

Penal Code, Section 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and

Sections 5g/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, in the

intervening night of 27/28.09.2018 at about 12:30 am when

the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years 8 months and 5 days,

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 27/03/2019 05:03:56
2
Misc. Criminal Case No.11357/2019

was at her house situated at village Rajwans under the

jurisdiction of Police Station Bandri, District Sagar, petitioners

have entered into her house and committed forceful

intercourse with her and after commission of the act, they

have threatened her regarding her life and fled away from the

spot. On the next morning, prosecutrix has narrated the

incidence to her neighbor Chandabai. Later on, on 01.10.2018

when prosecutrix’s father Raju Ahirwar has come then she

narrated him the incidence; and thereafter, accompanied with

him, she lodged the report at Police Station Bandri on

01.11.2018. On that basis, above mentioned crime has been

registered against the appellants.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners has contended that the FIR is not sustainable in the

eye of law on the ground that the same has been lodged with

a delay of 1½ months without having any plausible

explanation. It is also contended that the petitioner no.1 and

mother of the prosecutrix were appeared on 01.11.2018

before the Police Station Bandri; wherein their statements

were recorded. The mother of the prosecutrix specifically

stated that the prosecutrix had left the house on her own will

and not interested to live with her father; hence, the father of

the prosecutrix managed to implicate the petitioners in the

false case. It is further contended that the continuation of the

investigation pursuant to the FIR lodged shall be an abuse of

process of law as the prosecutrix was not aware about the FIR

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 27/03/2019 05:03:56
3
Misc. Criminal Case No.11357/2019

lodged against the petitioners and subsequently in her

statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure she has not alleged anything against the

petitioners. On the contrary afterward she came to know

about the lodging of FIR, she submitted representations to

various authorities including Superintendent of Police, Sagar to

the effect that she has not lodged any FIR against the

petitioners. In Column No.8 of the FIR no plausible explanation

has been mentioned for the delay in the FIR. There are many

contradictions and omissions in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Criminal

Procedure Code. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been

made to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings thereto.

4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent

no.1/State opposed the petition on the ground that prima-

facie the petitioners have been found involved in commission

of offence. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to

dismiss the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has filed

the affidavit with regard to the fact that the respondent no.2

does not want to continue with the proceedings against the

petitioners.

6. Having heard the contentions advanced by learned

counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is found that

in the FIR there is specific averment with regard to

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 27/03/2019 05:03:56
4
Misc. Criminal Case No.11357/2019

commission of the offence by the petitioners. Hence, it

appears prima-facie that sufficient material has been found

against the petitioners to prosecute them for the aforesaid

offence.

7. The scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been

discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Rishipal Singh

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in

(2014)7 SCC 215 extensively. The relevant paras are

reproduced herein :-

“10. Before we deal with the respective contentions
advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have
a thorough look at Section 482 CrPC, which reads:

“482.Saving of inherent powers of High Court.”
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders
as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it
crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under
this section is to prevent abuse of process of court and to
secure ends of justice. There are no hard-and-fast rules
that can be laid down for the exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an
exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that
there can be no straitjacket formula nor defined
parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise its
inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The courts have to be very
circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C.

11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals Pharma (P) Ltd. v.
Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
615] has discussed at length about the scope and ambit
while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC and how
cautious and careful the approach of the courts should
be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from
that judgment, which reads:

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 27/03/2019 05:03:56
5
Misc. Criminal Case No.11357/2019

“Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power
as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the
complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception
rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial
stage must have to be treated as the rarest of rare so as
not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgement of first
information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth
the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues
in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction
as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue
expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the
event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint
comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the
complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not
constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought
not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of
the people and deal with the situation as is required
under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be
indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a
legal process and such an investigation ought not to be
allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the
concept of justice, which is paramount.”

12. This Court in a plethora of judgments has laid down
the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by
the courts under Section 482 CrPC. In State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] this Court has listed the categories of cases when
the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the
Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated
by this Court in (1) CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
[(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , (2) Rajesh
Bajajv. State (NCT of Delhi) [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999
SCC (Cri) 401] and (3) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 283]. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] observed
that:

The power under Section 482 of the Code should be
used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse
of process of court, but not to stifle legitimate
prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but, if
it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of
a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of court,
the power under Section 482 of the Code must be
exercised and proceedings must be quashed.

Also see Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand [(2012) 12
SCC 72 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 472] , SCC p. 95, para 43.

13. What emerges from the above judgments is that
when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 27/03/2019 05:03:56
6
Misc. Criminal Case No.11357/2019

quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to
whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the
complaint prima-facie establish the case. The courts have
to see whether the continuation of the complaint
amounts to abuse of process of law and whether
continuation of the criminal proceeding results in
miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a
conclusion that quashing these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can
exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While
exercising the power under the provision, the courts have
to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the
complaint whether prima-facie discloses an offence or
not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial court
and dwell into the disputed questions of fact.”

8. In the backdrop of the legal position and the

discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case, in

view of this Court, this is not a fit case to quash the FIR

or other proceedings. If it is done then it will amount to

gross injustice to the complainant and will frustrate the

object of section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may raise all

the grounds taken by them before the trial Court at

appropriate stage. In view of the aforesaid, no case is

made out for interference in exercise of powers under

section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Petition being devoid of

substance stands dismissed.

(Mohd. Fahim Anwar)
Judge

taj.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 27/03/2019 05:03:56