Yogesh Kumar Holkar vs State Of M.P. & Another

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No. 166/2018 registered at Police Station Jora, District Morena (M.P.) and all other consequential proceedings flowing from the said FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is a Journalist, who had lodged complaint against the Town Inspector of concerning police station, wherein five criminal cases on same day were registered against the present petitioner by the concerned Town Inspector. The news with regard to filing of complaint against the said Town Inspector was flashed out through various communication system. Due to that enmity the Town Inspector has falsely implicated the present petitioner. It is further submitted that enquiry was conducted by SDO (P), Jora, who found that there is no involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid five criminal cases. During enquiry statements of various witnesses had been recorded, which are filed along with the petition at page 23. In para 10 of the enquiry report witnesses Balkumar Sai Kanwar Sub-Inspector, Jaideep Singh Bhadoriya Sub-Inspector, Keshav Singh Raman, Asstt. Sub-Inspector, Jora had stated that the present petitioner had not committed any offence, rather he was helping the police to control riot. On these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 166/2018, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others [AIR 1992 SC 604].

Per Contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that there is specific allegation against the present petitioner and after completion of investigation it was found that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427, 147, 148 of IPC. The charge sheet has already been filed and now trial is going on. Hence, there is no case for interference by this Court in the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC and he prays for dismissal of the same.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the available record.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-

"482. Saving for inherent power 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."

On perusal of the record available in the present case, it is apparent that the charge sheet has been filed in the present case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427, 147, 148 of IPC and trial is going on.

The present petition has been filed on the anvil of the fact that in the enquiry conducted by the SDO (P) the petitioner has been exonerated, but the FIR specifically reflects the name of the present petitioner, therefore, only on the basis of any enquiry made by SDO (P) the petitioner cannot be exonerated from the offence. Once the FIR has been lodged by naming the person as accused and thereafter after completion of investigation if charge sheet has been filed then only on the basis of judicial trial the person concerned may be discharged or acquitted or convicted by the Magistrate/Judge concerned.

The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary. The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that their powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial.

In view of above and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to interfere in the petition and to quash the FIR and other consequential proceedings.

Resultantly, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sans substance and is hereby dismissed.