Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mahaveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 November, 2021

Author:
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench:
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021
Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

Gwalior, Dated: 09-11-2021

Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta, Advocate for applicants.

Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for respondent

no.1/State.

This application under
Section 482
of Cr.P.C. has been filed for

quashing the FIR in Crime No.54/2018 registered at Police Station

Gormi, District Bhind as well as for quashing the further proceedings

in RCT No.290/2018 pending in the Court of JMFC, Mehgaon,

District Bhind.

2. It appears that the applicants are facing trial for offence under

Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant lodged an FIR

on 22/2/2018 alleging that on 16/6/2017 the engagement of his

daughter took place with applicant no.4, but since the complainant

was not in a position to fulfill the dowry demand of the applicants,

therefore, the marriage was cancelled. It was alleged that the

applicant no.4 was in government job and at the time of settlement of

marriage, the applicant had demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in cash as well

as one bullet motorcycle, apart from other household articles and the

complainant had agreed to give the same. The engagement was

solemnized on 16/6/2017 by exchanging rings in the Pavai Mata

Temple. On 26/6/2017 God Bharai rituals were fulfilled and a gold

ring of Rs.15,000/- was given to applicant no.4, whereas the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

applicants gave a pair of silver nose ring, Salvar suit as well as

Sarees to his daughter. The complainant had also given an amount of

Rs.51,000/- in cash and Rs.2,100/- alongwith the clothes to the

family members of the applicant at the time of Vidai. Subh Muhurt

for the marriage of the daughter of the applicant was 5/7/2018 and

accordingly, an invitation in the form of Peeli Chitthi was sent to the

applicants on 16/1/2018 through his son, but the applicants did not

accept the Peeli Chitthi and insisted that a swift car, gold ornaments

of 10 tola to the bride as well as an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be given

in cash. Further, it was said that in case if the complainant is ready to

give the aforesaid articles and money, then he should resend the Peeli

Chitthi, otherwise they would get applicant no.4 married to

somebody else. Since the complainant was not in a position to give a

swift car, cash amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and gold jewelry of 10 tolas,

therefore, the applicants have broken the marriage, as a result, the

complainant and his daughter have been defamed in the society.

3. Challenging the FIR as well as the criminal prosecution it is

submitted by the counsel for the applicant that although all the

witnesses in their ocular statements have repeated the allegations

made in the FIR, but their ocular statements are contrary to the Peeli

Chitthi which was seized and is a part of the charge-sheet. It is

submitted that from the Peeli Chitthi it is clear that it was not meant
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

for the applicant no.4 as well as the daughter of the complainant and

when the ocular statements are not supported by documentary

statements, then the ocular statements should be disbelived and the

charge-sheet should be quashed. In support of his contentions, the

counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. State of Maharasthra and others reported in SCC OnLine SC

315.

4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted that while exercising the power

under
Section 482
of Cr.P.C. High Court cannot appreciate the

evidence and the power can be exercised only when no offence is

made out, even if the entire allegations made against the accused are

accepted in toto.

5. Heard learned counsel for the partis.

6. The solitary argument of the applicant is that since the Peeli

Chitthi which has been filed alongwith the charge-sheet does not

relate to the applicant no.4 and the daughter of the complainant,

therefore, the allegations made in the FIR as well as ocular

statements of the witnesses must be disbelieved. The Supreme Court

in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) has held as
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

under:-

34. While considering the aforesaid issue, law on the
exercise of powers by the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to quash the FIR/complaint and the parameters
for exercise of such powers and scope and ambit of the
power by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

and/or under
Article 226
of the Constitution of India are
required to be referred to as the very parameters which
are required to be applied while quashing the FIR will
also be applicable while granting interim
stay/protection.

35. The first case on the point which is required to be
noticed is the decision of this Court in the case of R.P.
Kapur (supra). While dealing with the inherent powers
of the High Court under Section 561-A of the earlier
Code (which is pari materia with Section 482 of the
Code), it is observed and held that the inherent powers
of the High Court under Section 561 of the earlier Code
cannot be exercised in regard to the matters specifically
covered by the other provisions of the Code; the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised
to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent
the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice; ordinarily criminal
proceedings instituted against an accused person must
be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High
Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said
proceedings at an interlocutory stage. After observing
this, thereafter this Court then carved out some
exceptions to the above-stated rule, which are as under:

"(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal
bar against the institution or continuance of the
criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged.

Absence of
the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases
under this category.

(ii) Where the allegations in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a
matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first
information report to decide whether the offence
alleged is disclosed or not.

(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused
person do constitute an offence alleged but there is
either no legal evidence adduced in support of the
case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly
fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of
cases 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 manifestly and
clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and
cases where there is legal
evidence which on its appreciation may or may not
support the accusation in question. In exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court
would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the
function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it
would not be open to any party to invoke the High
Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a
reasonable appreciation of the evidence the
accusation made against the accused would not be
sustained."

36. In the case of Kurukshetra University (supra), this
Court observed and held that inherent powers under

Section 482
Cr.P.C. do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim
or caprice; that statutory power has to be exercised
sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare
cases. In the case before this Court, the High Court
quashed the first information report filed by the
Kurukshetra University through Warden and that too
without issuing notice to the University, in exercise of
inherent powers under
Section 482
Cr.P.C. This Court
noticed and observed that the High Court was not
justified in quashing the FIR when thepolice had not
even commenced investigation into the complaint filed
by the Warden of the University and no proceedings
were at all pending before any Court in pursuance of
the FIR.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

37. Then comes the celebrated decision of this Court in
the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). In the said decision, this
Court considered in detail the scope of the High Court
powers under
Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or
Article 226
of
the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred
to several judicial precedents and held that the High
Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the
merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the
proceedings without allowing the investigating agency
to complete its task. At the same time, this Court
identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint
can be quashed:

"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
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

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 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."

38. In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra), after
considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of
R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) and other
decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the
High Court under
Section 482
Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5,
7 and 8, it is observed and held as under:

"5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code 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 the Code. It
envisages three circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely : (i) to give effect
to an order under the Code, (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. 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 course
of administration of justice on the principle quando lex
aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res
ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

anything, it gives him that without which it cannot
exist). While exercising 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 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 power
to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the
process of the court to allow any action which would
result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash
any proceeding if it finds that initiation or 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
complaint, the court may examine the question of fact.
When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the
complainant has alleged and whether any offence is
made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

7. 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 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. Judicial process, no doubt
should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect and 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
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

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..

8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and
the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in
its exercise. 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. 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 : (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 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. In a proceeding
instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers
to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case
where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set
out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of
which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is
open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of
the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is
not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous
analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether
the case would end in conviction or acquittal.
The
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears
that on consideration of the allegations in the light of
the statement made on oath of the complainant or
disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence
or offences are disclosed and there is no material to
show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, in that event there would be no justification
for interference by the High Court. 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 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 proceeding."

39. In the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
(supra), in paragraph 11, this Court has observed and
held as under:

"11. ... the powers possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its
exercise. 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. 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 premise arrive at a conclusion
that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be
erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a
proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the
inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for
only in a case where the complaint does not disclose
any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 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 the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there
should be meticulous analysis of the case before the
trial to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as
a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the
allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of
the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or
offences are disclosed and there is no material to show
that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious,
in that event there would be no justification for
interference by the High Court. 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 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."

40. In the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri
(supra), in paragraph 31, it is observed and held as
under:

"31. A careful reading of the abovenoted judgments
makes it clear that the High Court should be
extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the
investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and
should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution
except when it is convinced beyond any manner of
doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any
offence or that the allegations contained in FIR do
not constitute any cognizable offence or that the
prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is
convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

abuse of the process of the Court. In dealing with
such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that
judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal
process initiated against a person accused of
committing offence is highly detrimental to the
larger public and societal interest. The people and
the society have a legitimate expectation that those
committing offences either against an individual or
the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if
found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while
deciding a petition filed for quashing FIR or
complaint or restraining the competent authority
from investigating the allegations contained in FIR
or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the
High Court should be extremely careful and
circumspect. If the allegations contained in FIR or
complaint disclose commission of some crime, then
the High Court must keep its hands off and allow
the investigating agency to complete the
investigation without any fetter and also refrain
from passing order which may impede the trial. The
High Court should not go into the merits and
demerits of the allegations simply because the
petitioner alleges malus animus against the author
of FIR or the complainant. The High Court must
also refrain from making imaginary journey in the
realm of possible harassment which may be caused
to the petitioner on account of investigation of FIR
or complaint. Such a course will result in
miscarriage of justice and would encourage those
accused of committing crimes to repeat the same.
However, if the High Court is satisfied that the
complaint does not disclose commission of any
offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that
the proceedings of criminal case would result in
failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent
power under
Section 482
CrPC."

41. In the case of Arun Gulab Gawali (supra), this
Court set aside the order passed by the High Court
quashing the criminal complaint/FIR which was even
filed by the complainant. In the case before this Court,
prayer for quashing the FIR before the High Court was
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

by the complainant himself and the High Court quashed
the FIR/complaint in exercise of the powers under

Section 482
Cr.P.C. Quashing and setting aside the
judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing
the FIR, this Court in paragraphs 13 and 27 to 29 has
observed as under:

"13. The power of quashing criminal proceedings
has to be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases and the Court cannot be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the
FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so patently
absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent
person can ever reach such a conclusion. The
extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to
act according to its whims or caprice. However, the
Court, under its inherent powers, can neither
intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it "soft-
pedal the course of justice" at a crucial stage of
investigation/proceedings. The provisions of

Articles 226
, 227
of the Constitution of India and

Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter called as "
CrPC
") are a device to
advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of
judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be
exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and
for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that
stream of administration of justice remains clean
and pure. However, there are no limits of power of
the Court, but the more the power, the more due
care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these
powers. (
Vide State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha

[(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : (1982) 1
SCC 561 :
AIR 1982 SC 949], Pepsi Foods Ltd. v.
Special Judicial Magistrate
[(1998) 5 SCC 749 :

1998 SCC (Cri) 1400], G. Sagar Suri v. State of
U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513 :
(2000) 2 SCC 636 : AIR 2000 SC 754] and Ajay
Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 703]) xxx xxx xxx

27. The High Court proceeded on the perception
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

that as the complainant himself was not supporting
the complaint, he would not support the case of the
prosecution and there would be no chance of
conviction, thus the trial itself would be a futile
exercise. Quashing of FIR/complaint on such a
ground cannot be held to be justified in law.

Ordinarily, the Court of Session is empowered to
discharge an accused under
Section 227
CrPC even
before initiating the trial. The accused can,
therefore, move the trial court itself for such a relief
and the trial court would be in a better position to
analyse and pass an order as it is possessed of all
the powers and the material to do so. It is, therefore,
not necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under

Section 482
CrPC for the quashing of a prosecution
in such a case. The reliance on affidavits by the
High Court would be a weak, hazy and unreliable
source for adjudication on the fate of a trial. The
presumption that an accused would never be
convicted on the material available is too risky a
proposition to be accepted readily, particularly in
heinous offences like extortion.

28. A claim founded on a denial by the complainant
even before the trial commences coupled with an
allegation that the police had compelled the lodging
of a false FIR, is a matter which requires further
investigation as the charge is levelled against the
police. If the prosecution is quashed, then neither
the trial court nor the investigating agency has any
opportunity to go into this question, which may
require consideration. The State is the prosecutor
and all prosecution is the social and legal
responsibility of the State. An offence committed is
a crime against society and not against the victim
alone. The victim under undue pressure or influence
of the accused or under any threat or compulsion
may resile back but that would not absolve the State
from bringing the accused to book, who has
committed an offence and has violated the law of
the land.

29. Thus, while exercising such power the Court has
to act cautiously before proceeding to quash a
prosecution in respect of an offence which hits and
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

affects the society at large. It should be a case where
no other view is possible nor any investigation or
inquiry is further required. There cannot be a
general proposition of law, so as to fit in as a
straitjacket formula for the exercise of such power.
Each case will have to be judged on its own merit
and the facts warranting exercise of such power.
More so, it was not a case of civil nature where
there could be a possibility of compromise or
involving an offence which may be compoundable
under
Section 320
CrPC, where the Court could
apply the ratio of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
[(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234 : (1988) 1
SCC 692 : AIR 1988 SC 709]."

42. Thereafter in catena of decisions, this Court has
reiterated the parameters for exercise of inherent
powers under
Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article
of the Constitution of India in the matter of
quashing the FIR/complaint.

51.
In the case of
Ujjal Kumar Burdhan
(supra), it is
observed and held by this Court that unless case of
gross abuse of power is made out against those in
charge of investigation, the High Court should be loath
to interfere at early/premature stage of investigation.

52.
In the case of
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi
), (1999) 8 SCC 728, in paragraphs 14 to 16, it
is observed and held as under:

"14. Further, the legal position is well settled that if
an offence is disclosed the court will not normally
interfere with an investigation into the case and will
permit investigation into the offence alleged to be
completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the
commission of an offence, the court does not
normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would
be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to
investigate into cognizable offences. [
State of W.B.
v. Swapan Kumar Guha
, (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982
SCC (Cri) 283] It is also settled by a long course of
decisions of this Court that for the purpose of
exercising its power under
Section 482
CrPC to
quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would
have to proceed entirely on the basis of the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

allegations made in the complaint or the documents
accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction
to examine the correctness or otherwise of the
allegations.

[
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar
, (1985)
2 SCC 370, 395 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 180]

15. Hence, in the present case, the High Court
committed a grave error in accepting the contention
of the respondent that the investigating officer had
no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the
alleged ground that no part of the offence was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
police station at Delhi. The appreciation of the
evidence is the function of the courts when seized
of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the
material collected by an investigating officer cannot
be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion
that the police station officer of a particular police
station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In
any case, it has to be stated that in view of
Section
178(c)
of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it is
uncertain in which of the several local areas an
offence was committed, or where it consists of
several acts done in different local areas, the said
offence can be enquired into or tried by a court
having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that
the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face
of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart, Section
156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a
police officer shall be challenged on the ground that
he has no territorial power to investigate. The High
Court has completely overlooked the said embargo
when it entertained the petition of Respondent 2 on
the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.

16. Lastly, it is required to be reiterated that while
exercising the jurisdiction under
Section 482
of the
Criminal Procedure Code of quashing an
investigation, the court should bear in mind what
has been observed in the
State of Kerala v. O.C.
Kuttan
[(1999) 2 SCC 651 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 304 :

JT (1999) 1 SC 486] to the following effect : (SCC
pp. 654-55, para 6) "Having said so, the Court gave
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing the criminal proceedings should be
exercised very sparingly with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will
not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and
that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice. It is too well
settled that the first information report is only an
initiation to move the machinery and to investigate
into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while
exercising the power and deciding
whether the investigation itself should be quashed,
utmost care should be taken by the court and at that
stage, it is not possible for the court to sift the
materials or to weigh the materials and then come to
the conclusion one way or the other.
In the case of

State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma
[(1996) 7 SCC 705 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 497 : JT (1996) 2 SC 488] a three-
Judge Bench of this Court indicated that the High
Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to
thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power
under Section 482 or under
Articles 226
and
of
the Constitution of India, as the case may be, and
allow the law to take its own course.

The same view
was reiterated by yet another three-Judge Bench of
this Court in the case of
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh
Kumar Bhada
[(1997) 2 SCC 397 : 1997 SCC (Cri)
415 : JT (1996) 11 SC 175] where this Court
sounded a word of caution and stated that such
power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised
only when the court is of the opinion that otherwise
there will be gross miscarriage of justice. The Court
had also observed that social stability and order is
required to be regulated by proceeding against the
offender as it is an offence against society as a
whole."

7. Thus, it is clear that this Court while exercising power under

Section 482
of Cr.P.C. cannot look into the reliability and credibility
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C. No.50855/2021

Mahavir Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another

of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.

8. In the present case, it is not the case of the applicants that they

were ready to marry the daughter of the complainant. The only

contention of the counsel for the applicants is that since the Peeli

Chitthi was not meant for the applicant no.4 and the daughter of the

complainant, therefore, the allegations of breaking the marriage on

account of additional demand cannot be relied upon, is beyond the

scope of power under
Section 482
of Cr.P.C. Whether the ocular

statement is to be believed or the Peeli Chitthi is to be believed or

discarded, is a matter which is to be considered and decided by the

Trial Court after recording the evidence.

9. As the allegations made in the FIR make out a prima facie case

warranting prosecution of the applicants, accordingly, the application

under
Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime

No.54/2018 registered at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind as well

as for quashing the further proceedings in RCT No.290/2018 pending

in the Court of JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind fails and is hereby

dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2021.11.10 18:29:24 +05'30'