ORDER
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. Eminent Jurist Cicero has said : “The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true.”
The above said quotation of Cicero is fully applicable in the present case.
One Prahlad Singh, who is the husband of prosecutrix, lodged a report in Police Station, Nasrullaganj which was reduced in writing in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 491 on 12-1-2004. A photocopy of the said report has been placed on record as Annexure 1. According to this report his wife (prosecutrix) on Friday, without informing him had gone away. In the Rojnamcha report, the description of the prosecutrix has been given. On the basis of the said report, a missing report No. 1/2004 was registered at Police Station, Nasrullaganj.
2. It is said that in pursuance to the said report the police searched the wife of said Prahlad and ultimately succeeded in finding her on 22-1-2004. Thereafter,, her statement has recorded and a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure 2. According to this statement, this lady was married to Prahlad 9-10 years ago and they had a son, namely, Jitendra, aged about two and half years and she is carrying pregnancy of 4-5 months from Prahlad. On going through the statement of prosecutrix, it is revealed that whenever she fells ill, her husband was getting her treated from the applicant and in this manner applicant used to visit her house for the treatment. On further scrutiny of the said statement it is revealed that Prahlad (husband of prosecutrix) was having suspicion over her and she was beaten by her husband as such she, on 29-12-2003 in the afternoon at 2 o’clock went to Obedullaganj and then went to Village Dagarward at her mother’s place. After narrating the incident to her mother, prosecutrix approached Police chowki Goharganj alongwith her mother Kalabai and lodged a report against her husband Prahlad. She has further stated that after 4-5 days her husband had come to Dagarwada and persuaded her to accompany him, assuring her that he would not now beat her. Thereafter assuring her husband Prahlad started persuading her that she may lodge a report against “Doctor Sahab” (Applicant) and implicate him in a false case of rape so that they may snatch rupees one lac. But, she did not agree and for this cause, her husband beat her and turned her out of his house. Thereafter on 11-1-2004 she lodged a report at Police Station and she went to Dagarwada again.
3. On further X-raying the statement of prosecutrix (Annexure 2) it is gathered that her father Narbada Prasad had left her mother Kalabai since her childhood and thereafter her mother Kalabai had remarried with one Madanlal of Village Dagarwada and her father Narbada Prasad had remarried one lady, namely, Sushila Bai at Nasrullaganj. Her father Narbada Prasad is not keeping her with him and her step father Madanlal also do not want to keep her with him and her husband Prahlad too, do not want to keep her with him and she is completely without any support, as such she is working as a labourer.
4. Thereafter police got her statement recorded before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a copy thereof has been filed as Annexure 3. On bare perusal of this statement it is revealed that prosecutrix has specifically stated that she had no relations with the applicant except the relationship of patient and doctor, but her husband is having suspicion over her. She has specifically stated before the Magistrate that she do not want to go any where and want to live independently. This statement was recorded on 22-1-2004.
5. The contention of the learned Counsel for applicant is that thereafter certain developments took place and ultimately on 26-7-2004 a Dehati Nalishi was lodged by prosecutrix in Police Station Kotwali, Sehore though she was living in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Nasrullaganj. In the said report it is said that on 29-12-2003 at 6.00 P.M. present applicant committed rape over her, at her house. Her husband saw present applicant in compromising position with her and thereafter present applicant fled from the spot. On the next day, i.e., on 30-12-2003 she, on account of quarrel with her husband, left her husband’s house and had gone to the place of her mother. Thereafter, on the next day, the present applicant, forcibly took her away in a jeep and went to Village Nimota, and on the way he committed vile act (Bura Kaam) with her. On the basis of this Dehati Nalishi, which was ultimately sent to the concerning Police Station, Nasrullaganj, a case under Sections 366, 506 and 376, IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was registered against the applicant.
6. On the basis of aforesaid facts and by supporting case on the basis of documents (Annexure 1, Annexure 2 and Annexure 3), which I have referred hereinabove, it has been contended by Shri Datt, learned Senior Advocate that the applicant is an innocent and the case has been cooked against him, in order to snatch rupees one lac from him. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court; they are Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1069 and Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Anr., AIR 1996 SC 309.
7. On the other hand Mrs. Paliwal, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that since a report has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the present applicant and a case has been registered and charge-sheet has been submitted in the Competent Court, this Court should not exercise powers conferred under Section 482, Cr.PC and the petition be dismissed.
8. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view this petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Before dealing the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties it would be apposite to mention that there are certain norms fixed by the Apex Court in order to exercise powers under Section 482, Cr.PC. In case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 AIR SCW 237, which was later on followed by the Apex Court in a later decision in Rupan Deol Bajaj (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. The Apex Court thereafter enumerated certain points which are mentioned in Clauses 1 to 7 in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) according to which the High Court, while exercising inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.PC may quash an FIR or a complaint and they are as under :–
“(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 concerned act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is malaciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Thus, it is to be seen that whether the present case in hand comes under the ambit and sweep of any of the clauses which has been enumerated in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). It has been contended by Shri Datt, learned Senior Advocate that clause (7) squarely covers the entire case and the point in controversy.
10. Annexure 1 which is a copy of Rojnamcha Sanha of Police Station, Nasrullaganj, dated 12-1-2004, if perused, it would be gathered that in the afternoon the wife of Prahlad left the house without saying anything. It is no more in dispute that Prahlad and his wife are Harijan (Chamar) by caste. On the basis of the said Rojnamcha report, investigating agency came in motion and the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC on 22-1-2004, which is Annexure 2. The details of her statement I have already quoted hereinabove, but, I would not like to hesitate, even at the cost of repetition that according to her statement, she, on 29-12-2003 at 2 o’clock in the afternoon, left the house of her husband as she was beaten by her husband Prahlad. According to her statement, her husband Prahlad was insisting her to lodge report against the applicant so that they may be benefited by a sum of rupees one lac. It would be relevant to mention here that in the State of Madhya Pradesh, if any, “Harijan” lady is the victim of rape, the Government pays some amount, as ex-gratia to her. This lady declined to lodge the report, which made cause to her husband Prahlad causing Marpeet to her, as a result of which at 2 P.M. on 29-12-2003 she left the house of her husband Prahlad and went to Village Dagarwada where her mother resides. If Dehati Nalishi dated 26-7-2004 which was lodged in Police Station Kotwali, Sehore is kept in juxtaposition with her statement (Annexure 2), dated 22-1-2004 and be read conjointly it is revealed that whatever the averments she had made, are manifestly malafide in order to implicate the present applicant maliciously with an ulterior motive to snatch handsome money. In the Dehati Nalishi the offence is said to have been committed on 29-12-2003 at 6 P.M. and the place has been shown the house of her husband in Village Ladkui, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Nasrullaganj. But much earlier to the said Dehati Nalishi (near about 7 months before) on 22-1-2004 she has already given a statement that on account of Marpeet caused by her husband on 29-12-2003 she left the house of her husband at 2 P.M. The husband was insisting her to lodge a false report of rape against the present applicant in order to snatch money and she was declining to do so. Thus, according to me, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, one can safely say that in between, the husband of the prosecutrix, succeeded in persuading her and ultimately she lodged Dehati Nalishi in Police Station, Sehore. There is a cogent reason that why Dehati Nalishi was lodged in Police Station, Sehore while the alleged incident of rape, according to the said report, was committed within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Nasrullaganj. The answer is as clear like a noon day and the reason is that because on 12-1-2004 Prahlad, the husband of the prosecutrix already lodged a report in regard to missing of his wife, which was registered as missing, report No. 1/04. The investigating agency of Police Station, Nasrullaganj thereafter recorded the statement of prosecutrix (Annexure 2) and thereafter same investigating agency on 22-1-04 got recorded her statement before Sub Divisional Magistrate. If the FIR would have been lodged in Police Station, Nasrullaganj, there were reasonable chances of not registering the case since there was an investigation by the said Police Station, Nasrullaganj in that regard. In this manner, it appears that Prahlad, the husband of the prosecutrix, succeeded in giving his positive vile thought in order to snatch the money, by persuading his wife to lodge report at Police Station, Sehore, where it was registered at zero number and later on, sent to Police Station, Nasrullaganj because the alleged offence of rape was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Nasrullaganj.
11. Indeed, the purpose to quote the quotation of eminent jurist Cicero is that on the basis of untrue facts and by concealing the truth, the Dehati Nalishi was lodged in Police Station, Sehore.
12. To seek interference under Section 482, Cr.PC three conditions are to be filled, namely :–
(i) the injustice which comes to light should be grave and not of a trivial character;
(ii) it should be palpable and clear and doubtful;
(iii) there exists no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could not have sought relief.
It is an age-old and well established principle that every Court has power to act ex-debetio justitiae to do that real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It is obvious that the inherent power can be exercised only for either of the three purposes specifically mentioned in the Section. It is only where High Court is satisfied either:–
(i) that an order passed under the Code would be rendered ineffective, or
(ii) that the process of any Court would be abused, or
(iii) that the ends of justice would not be secured, that the High Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482.
The Apex Court in the case of Madhua Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47, has laid down the following principles in relation to exercise of inherent power of the High Court:
(i) the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of any grievance of the aggrieved party;
(ii) that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
(iii) that it should be exercised as against the expressed bar of law engrafted into any other provision of the Code.
Indeed on the basis of these principles laid down by the Apex Court, I can safely say that the proceeding initiated against the present applicant is clear and manifest abuse of the process of law and Court and, therefore, according to me, this is a fit case where power under Section 482 Cr.PC is to be exercised.
13. According to me, since the prosecutrix and her husband are by caste Harijan (Chamar) in order to snatch handsome money from the applicant, who is RMP Doctor, this foul game has been played by the husband of the prosecutrix. Thus the proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and the FIR has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to snatch money from the applicant. If in such type of cases this Court strays its hands by not exercising inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.PC, it would amount to throttling of dignity of the society in which the citizen are living freely and without any fear.
14. In the result this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Dehati Nalishi dated 26-7-2004 on the basis of which FIR was registered by Police Station, Nasrullaganj Annexure 4 are hereby quashed and the proceedings against the applicant pending in the Court of Special Judge, Sehore in Special Criminal Case No. 60/2004, arising out of Crime No. 255/2004 registered at Police Station, Nasrullaganj stand quashed and the applicant is discharged.