HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CR.M.P. NO. 417 of 2007 Mahendra Singh Bhatia and another § X IPL l 3 l I . . ( ‘ l t X r ‘ 3 I i i i ESPONDENT sar ORDER *k P bf2007 ost onq uOctOer‘ f Mfr/i N Sdl- hirendra Mishra Judge ‘‘l~‘v_v—pg_m @Q A CANTS VERSUS R J State of Chhattigh i D 7rm*~a_gi‘ ., W. ‘ I ”u HIGH COURT OF, CHHATTISGARH VBILASPUR i ‘ § CR M P NO 417 of 2007 A‘PFLICANTS '_ ‘ 1. Mahendra Smgh Bhaua i § i f - Aged about 57 years, . K $ S/o Late Shrl Harbansh Smgh : g Bhatia, R/o Barpall Chowk P O, ‘ 1 Champa District—Champa—Janj’gir * ; § (w) ' ,_ , ‘ i ’ E ' 2. Twmkle Ahas Satvmdar Smgh ‘ ‘ Bhatla, Aged about 35 years, S/o . ‘ E Mahendra Smgh Bhatla, R/o 3 ‘ I' _Barpali ,Chowk PO Champa ’ i E ' District- Champa-Janjgir (CG) ' l [ i e r ’ VERSUS ~ ' ,IRESEPONDENT 1 a — _ ‘ . I State - _ of Chhattisgarh > , g , " Through Pohce Statlon * g ‘ ‘ ' _ Janjglr, D1str1ct—Champa—Janjg1r K (CG) V fresent . ' “ i g Mr Kanak T1war1, Sr Advocate Wlth Mr Matm S1dd1qu1, % f Advocate for the apphcants / 1 § l Mr G K Ber1wa1 Dy A G for the State/respondent , ORDER ‘ g (Passed onqi5ctober 2007) 133h1rendra Mlshra, J T The apphcants by the 1nstant pet1t10n under Section 482 of d the ‘Code of Cr1m1na1 Procedure (for brev1ty ‘the Code’) have prayed ' I for quashmg the proceedmgs 1n Sess1ons Tnal No 163/07 pendmg I ' ’ ‘V 1n the Court of II Addltronal Sess1ons Judge (FTC), Janjglr Gr1evance of the apphcants 1n the mstant pet1t10n 1s that on i th fbas1s of report dated 14th Apr11 2005 by Mahendra Smgh ‘ of e under Secuons 147 148 149 294 341 323 and 307 of f In 1an Penal Code was reglstered by Pohce Statlon Janjglr agalnst i ‘ the apphcants and other s1x persons After completmg ‘ 1nvest1gat1on charge sheet was f11ed against them and the learned ‘ II Addluonal Sess1ons Judge (FTC) Janjglr v1de order dated r t 6 9 2007 of Annexure A/ 12 framed charges under Sectlons 506(2), , ‘ 307/34 323/34 agalnst apphcant No 1 Mahendra‘Smgh whereas i ‘ ' charges under Sect1on 307 323/34 have been framed ag': nst .,,... ' apphcant No 2 Twmkle @ Satvmdar Smgh p efemng to the Flrst Informatlon Report of Annexure A/ 1 1t ued that the only allegatlon agamst apphcant Mahendra‘ s that he exhorted hls son and other assocxates who were’ 1th mile, lathl, rod etc to k111 the complamant and throw o the nver and thereafter, proceeded towards Champa ~ s no allegatlon agamst hlm that at the tlme of 1nc1dent he - sent there Allegatmn agamst apphcant No 2 'I‘w1nkle @ A: ‘ ar Smgh 1s that he was holdmg r1fle wh1ch he placed I the stomach of complalnant and exhorted h1s fr1ends to k111 I There ls no allegatlon that he gave any blow to the k nant or h1s dmver Jltendra Pandey Further referrlng to 1 ry report of J1tendra Pandey and complamant Mahmder t was argued that none of the 1nJur1es were caused on v1tal l, ‘ f the body and there 1s no materlal ava11able on recordlto < harge under Sectlon 307 of IPC against the apphcants and " l Court w1thout applymg 1ts mmd has mechamcally frame agamst them 1gnor1ng the fact that the apphcants and the mant party are 11quor contractor and because of busmess rlvalry, arty t, who iwe re notpresent at the tlme of 1nc1dent have been falsely complla1 the 1nJu Smgh 1 partsl p frame c the tina charges comrgla , there was some quarrel between the employees of both the" However, due to busmess related r1va1ry the apphcants roped 1n l P > ’Kumlar ‘ ers, ' r argued am f I mtentlo r n or knowledge and under such c1rcumstances that 1f he byl, _ t caused death he would be gullty of murder 1 e 1ntent10n \ wledge to commlt murder must ex1st‘ There must be firstly ' on to commlt 1t secondly preparatlon to comm1t 1t and, an attemt to comm1t 1t and when the attempt falls, crlme lacmg rehance on the-Judgments 1n the matters of Harir and another Vs State of M P (1988) 1994 4 SuELL) SCC 551 SCC Samgay’ 502/: ' (2000) 4 SCC 454 1t 1s : that necessary 1ngred1ents 1n order to brlng the case w1thm , blt of Sect10n 307 are that the accused acted w1th such ‘ tant case lookmg to the nature of alegatlons present 1n te; alnst the appllcants, the statements of w1tnesses and sustalned by the complamant mgredlents of Secuon 30 I3. R was’ arg " gh 1 ‘1 anmed w h int : L There 1 ‘ was pre ‘Satwhd Vaga1n.st * hlm 2 thatlac ‘or kno ~1ntentl 1 th1rd1y, p 1ns l h " I'Fl :ag ' A, 1njur1es 7 Lre completely mlssmg, therefore, the tnal Court has commltted llegahty 1n frammg charge under Sectlon 307/ 34 of IPC It ls settled law that powers under Sectlon 482 of the Code, d by Hon’ble the Supreme Court 1n the matter of State of glana and others Vs. hgJan Lal and others 1992 Suggu) 1 33§,_ should be exerc1sed very sparmgly and w1th, mspectmn and that too 1n the rarest of rare cases It should e exerc1sed e1ther to prevent abuse of the process of Court or therw1se to secure the ends ofJustlce In the aforesald matter the on’ble Supreme Court has descrlbed some of the categones of ases by way of 111ustrat10n wherem such powers could be xe¥c1sed r ( 1) ~ ~ Where the allegatlon made in the first ‘ 1nforrnat1on report or the complaJnt even 1f they ,arettaken at the1r face value and accepted 1n then: entlrely do not pnma facle constltute any offence or make out a case against the accused 2) Where the allegatlons 1n the first 1nformat10n ' report and other materlals, 1f any, accompanymg the FIR do not dlsclose a cogn1zab1e offence Justlfylng an nvestlgatlon by pol1ce officers under Sect10n 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Mag1strate w1th1n the purv1ew of ' é Sect10n 155(2) of the Code (3), _ ‘Where the uncontroverted allegatlons made 1n the FIR or complamt and the ev1dence collected 1n support of the same do not drsclose the comm1ss1on of any offence and make out a case V agamst the accused _ } , (4) Where the allegatmns in the FIR do not ’ ' const1tute a cogmzable offence but const1tute only a non—cogmzable offence no 1nvest1gat1on 1s perm1tted by a pohce officer w1thout an order of , a Magrstrate as contemplated under Sectlon ' 155(2) of the Code (5) ‘ Where the allegatlons made 1n the FIR or V omplamt are so 1 absurd and 1nherent1y, r ,v1mprobable on the bas1s of whlch no prudent ‘ I person can ever reach a Just conclus1on that l I there 1s suffic1ent ground for proceedlng agalnst the accused ‘ ‘ , 6) g Where there 1s an express legal bar engrafted 1n ' ; ‘ ' ,Yany of 7t ei prov1s10ns of the Code or the H ' concerned Act (under wh1ch a ' crlmlnal‘ ' proceedlng ls 1nst1tuted) to the 1nst1tut10n and‘ contlnuance of the proceedlngs and/or where there ls a spec1f1c prov1s1on 1n the Code or the a I g ‘ ‘ h ‘l ,a '6 ‘b ‘ "u o H c e ( , ‘ fi ( " I concerned Act prov1d1ng efflcamous redress for the gnevance of the aggrleved party 5 (7) Where a cnmmal proceedmg 1s malnfestly L attended Wlth mala flde and/or where the proceedmg 1s mahcmusly 1nst1tuted Wlth an* ulterlor motlve for Wreaklng vengeance on the accused and Wlth a Vlew to splte h1m due to prlvate and personal grudge 1 i i ! I t r j , ’ ‘ that We the also power glve a of note quashlng of cautlon a to the crlmlnal effect ‘ ‘proceedmg should be exerc1sed very sparmgly _ § and w1th c1rcumspect10n and that too 1n the i i rarest of rare cases, that the court w111 not be g * _ Justlfied 1n embarking upon an enqulry as to the g rehablhty or genumeness or othervv1se of the ; allegatlons made 1n the FIR or the complamt and r that the extraordlnaly or 1nherent powers do not t ~ confer an arbltrary Jurlsdlctlon on the court to E act accordmg to 1ts whlm or caprlce :in the Instant matter, there are allegatlons agalnst the, apphcants 1n the complalnt as also 1n the statements of w1tnesses, thle same, exhorted the1r assoc1ates who came w1th them armed, w1th weapons to murder the complamant and thereafter, assaulted the complalnant and hls dnver Jltendra Pandey, Who sustalned I 1njur1es In the above three Judgments Clted by the appllcants, the . Hon’ble Supreme Court after cons1der1ng the ev1dence adduced ‘ du’ fng tnal has dlsposed of the appeals preferred by the respectlve' parnes by cons1der1ng the necessary Ingredlents of offence under Sectlon 307 of IPC However, at the stage of frammg charge, rdetalled exam1nat1on of ev1dence avallable 1n the charge sheet 1s - ne1ther necessary nor des1rab1e The trlal Court taklng 1nto‘ ‘cons1derat10n the allegatlons present 1n the FIR and the ev1dence avaJlable 1n the charge sheet has recorded a prama fac1e satlsfactlon that the above allegat1ons const1tute offence under Sectlo‘ns 506(2), 307/34 323/34 of IPC agalnst the appllcants and ' V accordmgly framed the charges aga1nst them Therefore, 1n the N cons1dered op1n10n of th1s Court the allegatlons present 1n the FIR and the statements of w1tnesses filed along With th1s pet1t1on _,_: = prlma‘ fac1e const1tute cognlzable offence aga1nst the apphcantsu: and the same does not fall 1n any one of the categones of cases _ r ‘mentdoned 1n the O‘ t t i nt of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to IV herelnabove calllng for exerc1se of 1nherent powers of thls Courtito ’ 7 T that they 1ntercepted the Jeep of the complamant after overtakmg *' V V J“ e