AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
Heard on admission.
This M.Cr.C. under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (section 482 Cr.P.C.) is filed seeking quashment of FIR dated 25.4.2025 bearing Crime no.157/2025 registered by P.S.-Mungaoli, District- Ashoknagar and all other consequential proceedings arising thereto.
As per the prosecution story, on 12.03.2025, Sendhpal was admitted for treatment in the Government Hospital, Mungawali, but due to serious injuries on his body, he was referred to the District Hospital, Ashoknagar, where he died during treatment at the District Hospital, Ashoknagar, therefore a Merg No. 23/25 under Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, on the basis of which the actual Crime No. 17/25 under Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Police Station, Mungawali. During the merg enquiry, the deceased's father Malkhan Singh and brother Afsar told in their statements that Devi Singh Yadav, Abhishek Yadav, Vikas Yadav, Bhupendra Yadav and their relative Tony Yadav of village Kanjia had a dispute in village Daulatpur, Police Station Bhangarh Bina on old enmity and in that regard had brought the deceased Sendhpal with them to Village Semarkhedi on Mungawali Road and after beating him, had left him in an injured condition along with his motorcycle on the roadside of village Semarkhedi on Mungawali Bina Road and on the basis of statements of eye-witness the petitioner has been impleaded in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations levelled in the present FIR are wholly concocted and do not make out the offences alleged. Even if the contents of the FIR are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients are completely absent. It is also contended that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, and therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR as well as all consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.
Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and argued that the grounds raised relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the FIR it is clear that there is old rivalry between the deceased and the accused persons and looking to the merg report the case does not appear to be an accident. The petitioner along with accused persons had beaten deceased Sendhpal Singh Bundela and thereafter had then brought him to village Semarkhedi with his motorcycle and again after beating him left him on the roadside, making it look like an accident. From the statements of eyewitnesses of the incident, the petitioner appears to have duly participated in the alleged offence. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code) or the power of superintendence vested in the High Court are not expected to be invoked very lightly. The plea of false implication raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage and must necessarily be tested in the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence. This Court cannot, under the garb of exercising inherent powers, conduct a mini-trial.
In view of the above, no case for quashment of FIR is made out.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.