O.P. Tiwari vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

C.V. Sirpurkar, J—This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR dated 18.06.2014 in Crime No. 410/2015 registered by P.S. Panagar, District-Jabalpur, whereby an offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 186 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been registered against the applicants O.P. Tiwari and Geeta Tiwari.

The facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous criminal case may briefly be stated thus: As per prosecution case, Aggrieved Saroj Garg is an Anganwadi worker posted in Jagmohan ward, Panagar, Jabalpur. As per orders of the Returning Officer, on 10.04.2014, her duty was fixed for distribution of the Voter Slips in Polling Centre No. 29 of Jagmohan ward, during elections to the Lok Sabha. At around 12:30 p.m., applicant No. 1/accused O.P. Tiwari and his wife applicant No. 2/accused Geeta Tiwari came to the Police Centre and started to misbehave with the aggrieved Saroj. They provoked an altercation and started to abuse her causing acute mental agony. As a result, her self-esteem was hurt. The accused persons created ruckus in the Polling Centre and obstructed her in discharge of her official duty. At that time, accused O.P. Tiwari was boasting that they were senior workers of the ruling party BJP and nobody could harm them. He also threatened that after elections, he would sort her out and would make her lose her job. At that point of time, Rohit Upadhyay and Mahendra Chakrabarty were also present at the spot.

The complainant filed a written report dated 10.04.2014 in the Police Station Panagar. On 11.04.2014, S.H.O., P.S. Panagar, directed Assistant Sub-Inspector M.D. Pandey to enquire into the matter and submit his report. After recording statements of the witnesses, the report was submitted on 18.06.2014. Crime No. 410/2014 under Sections 294, 186 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against the applicants Geeta Tiwari and O.P. Tiwari. The charge-sheet was filed and a Criminal Case No. 8320/2014 was registered in the Court of JMFC (Shri Pramendra Sing) Jabalpur. It has been submitted that charge in the case has been framed.

Quashing of the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, has been prayed for mainly on the grounds that Chandrika Garg, husband of complainant Saroj Garg, is a Home Guard attached to P.S. Panagar. On 10.04.2014 at the time of Lok-Sabha election, the accused persons Geeta Tiwari and O.P. Tiwari had gone to Polling Centre. At that time aggrieved Saroj Garg was sitting on a table on duty. She raised her palm towards the applicants and indicated that the accused persons should vote for the symbol "Panja". Accused Geeta Tiwari opposed her overture; whereon, aggrieved Saroj Garg, with a view to hide her mistake, stood up in anger took out her slippers and threatened accused Geeta with slippers. Accused Geeta Tiwari felt humiliated and hurt. On the same day, she lodged a written report in P.S. Panagar.

It has further been submitted that at around 9:30 p.m., on the same day, Teerath Garg, who is son of aggrieved Saroj Garg, came to the house of accused Geeta Tiwari with his companions and broke open the front door of her house. Teerath Garg was armed with a sword. He entered her house and beat up her daughter Mridula and son Mayank Tiwari. Teerath Garg snatched away a gold chain from her neck. They were pressurizing her to take back the complaint made by her against Teerath''s mother Saroj Garg. When the accused persons heard the siren of police vehicle, they ran away. Accused Geeta Tiwari was lodged a First Information Report of the incident at 10:45 p.m. on the same night; whereon, an offence under Sections 452, 392, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 was registered against Teerath Garg and his companions.

It has further been submitted that in order to pressurize the accused persons, aggrieved Saroj Garg filed ante-dated written report on 11.04.2014 signing it in the date of 10.04.2014. On the basis of aforesaid written report, after more than two months FIR has been registered against the accused persons under Sections 294, 196 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It has been contended that this FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast to the report of the incident that took place at the Polling Station, by the accused Geeta Tiwari and subsequent FIR of the serious offences committed by the son of the complainant.

It has further been contended that cognizance of offence under Section 186 of the IPC can only be taken on complaint of the concerned Public Servant or his Administrative superior. It has also been submitted that even as per FIR no obscenities were uttered on the spot; therefore, no offence under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. is made out.

In aforesaid circumstances, placing reliance upon the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp , it has been prayed that the FIR and the proceeding arising therefrom be quashed.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State and learned counsel for aggrieved Saroj Garg on the other hand, have opposed the application and have stated that the first information report lodged by the complainant has been supported by numerous witnesses.

On due consideration of the rival contention and perusal of record, this Court is of the view that, the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must succeed for the reasons hereinafter stated.

It is true that charge in the case has been framed; however, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, AIR 2013 SC 506 : (2013) CriLJ 411 : (2013) 1 Crimes 59 : (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 883 : (2012) 11 SCALE 193 , that the extraordinary power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused.

It is true that at this stage the defence of accused persons cannot be considered and reliance will have to be placed upon the Charge-sheet and the documents filed therewith; however, the documents of unimpeachable character may be considered. A perusal of the charge-sheet and documents filed therewith together with unimpeachable documents filed on behalf of the applicant reveals that some incident of a relatively trivial nature took place between the aggrieved Saroj Garg on one side and applicants Geeta Tiwari and her husband O.P. Tiwari on the other, at the Polling Station, where the aggrieved being an Anganwadi worker, was said to be on duty. Written report of aforesaid incident was lodged by applicant Geeta Tiwari with S.H.O., P.S. Panagar, on 10.04.2014. This written report (Annexure P-3) bears the seal of the Police Station and acknowledgment of the SHO dated 10.04.2014. Complainant Saroj Garg also lodged a written report which has been signed by her and under the signature the date 10.04.2014 has been mentioned; however, the endorsement of the SHO, Panagar to Assistant Sub-Inspector M.D. Pandey thereon was made on 11.04.2014. Thus, it appears that the written report on the basis of which an enquiry was conducted and first information report was lodged, was not made on 10.04.2014 but on 11.04.2014. As such, it is clear that the written report by the complainant was made after the accused Geeta Tiwari had made two reports against her on 10.04.2014 itself, first relating to the incident that took place at the Polling Station and the second that took place at the residence of accused Geeta Tiwari.

Thus, there is substance in the allegation that the report of incident of relatively trivial incident at the Police Station, was made as a counter- blast to the two reports made by the accused Geeta Tiwari. Another document has been filed along with the charge-sheet. It is in the form of instructions issued to the B.L. Os. by the Office of Assistant Election Registration Officer 101, Panagar. In this document, a hand written note has been appended as a post-script to certify the aggrieved Saroj Garg was available at the Polling Centre from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on 10-4-2014. This endorsement has clearly been made subsequently.

Another aspect of the matter is that cognizance of offence under Section 186 of the IPC (Obstructing Public Servant in discharge of Public functions), can be taken only in accordance with Section 195(1)(a)(i) upon a complaint of the concerned Public Servant or some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. As in the present case, such cognizance cannot be taken on the basis of police report. Likewise, a perusal of the FIR reveals that no allegation has been made that the accused persons uttered any obscene words on the spot. Thus, the offence under Section 294 of the IPC is also not made out. The aggrieved was not said to have been threatened with life either.

It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of law. The powers should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecution. However, in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, it appears that criminal proceedings in this case are manifestly attended with mala fides and have been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused persons in order to pressurize and harass them; therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp , interference by this Court to prevent the abuse of process of law is imperative. As such, the prayer for quashing the first information report and proceedings arising therefrom, deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

FIR in Crime No. 410/2014 registered by P.S. Panagar on 18.06.2014 under Sections 294, 506 and 186 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. registered against the applicants and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 8320/2014 arising therefrom and pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, are quashed.