THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-13994-2016
PRABHAT KUMAR HAZARE
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-10-2017
Shri Manish Datt, learned Sr. Advocate along with Shri Pradeep Hazari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri G.S. Thakur, learned GA for the respondent/State.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.:— This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing and setting-aside the First Information Report registered in Crime No. 434/2013 at Police Station G.R.P for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 384, 506, 354, 342 and 355 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted by the applicant/petitioner that the petitioner is Chief Ticket Inspector posted at West Central Railway, Sagar. Looking to the heavy ticketless passengers in every Railway train, the Railway Board organized an intensify Ticket Checking and Fortress Checking Programme to control ticketless travel continuously for Railway Zones and Divisions. Pursuant to this direction and orders, a fortress checks were organized at Railway Station Katni on 25.10.2013 from 6:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m in the night. On that day, the fortress check was organized with 70 Ticket Collectors including with the Head Ticket Collectors, Chief Ticket Collectors and several Chief Commercial Inspectors. On that day, Senior Divisional Commissioner Railway and Deputy Security Commissioner were also present there during the day. Kamayani Express which originated from Mumbai and going to Varanasi came at Katni Railway Station at 10:25 a.m at Platform No. 3. Thereafter, railway checking staff entered into the train and while checking, they found that in 8 compartments 39 persons who boarded from Beena and they told that they were going to Uchehehra to participate in the Rally which has been organized by Bhartiya Kisan Union and they did not have any ticket. When the ticket checking staff told that they would be fined and also they should pay ticket charges, they informed that they are going to participate in the Rally at Uchehhehra and they always travel without tickets. Then they were brought down from the compartments at Platform No. 3. On ticket charges and fine were not paid, the 39 passengers were taken to the R.P.F Police Station and they were made to sit on the ground situated outside in R.P.F Police Station, Katni. They were again requested to pay the ticket charges and fine and also informed about this fact that if the fine amount was not paid then legal action would be taken against them and they would be arrested. Thereafter, they paid the fine amount and ticket charges and receipt of the same has been given to them. After that, those 39 passengers went outside the Railway Station. On 26.10.2013, the Chief Ticket Inspector submitted information and receipts regarding recovery of the amount of the aforesaid passengers. Under the Fortress checking 862 passengers including the aforesaid Rallyers were caught travelling without ticket and the total amount of Rs. 3,15,480/- was recovered including Rs. 12,817/- which was recovered from the Rallyers.
2. On 25.10.2013, the respondent No. 2, who claimed himself as President of Rastriya Karyakarni of Bhartiya Kisan Union came to the Police Station-G.R.P, Katni and submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer GRP, Police Station, Katni contending that the railway checking staffs have assaulted, misbehaved with the ladies and looted the Rallyers and also made the other allegations, due to which on 26.10.2013, police registered an offence against R.P.F Commandant Jabalpur Sarfraz Khan, Senior DCM Rajesh Sharma and others RPF Staffs at Railway Checking team and staff.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said complaint is completely false and not correct. It is submitted that the First Information Report is registered with the malafide intention and having full of false allegations. It is mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner and others misbehaved with the ladies by inserting his hand on her blouse, who were going to participate in the Rally and the petitioner/applicant and others snatched money from various persons, these allegations are incorrect and made under the malafideness and political pressure. He further submits that there is no necessary ingredients found for constituting the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 384, 506, 354, 342 and 355 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the present petitioner/applicant. He further submits that the allegations made against the present petitioner/applicant by the complainant being aggrieved from the fortress checking programme organized by Railway Board. Therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner is vague and there is no prime facie case is made out against the petitioner. He has produced the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C No. 15288/2013 whereby the FIR has been quashed against the co-accused persons namely, Rajesh Sharma and Saiyed Sarfaraz Ahmad.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has opposes the application and submits that from the reading of statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C of Nandan Bai, Dulari Bai, Mama Kutwar, Godibai, Urmila, Aneeta, Shantibai and Munnubai, prima facie case against the petitioner is made out as they narrated the incident being victim of the case. He further stated that the petitioner has already delayed this petition for a long time and any further interference in the instant FIR No. 434/2013 in which the Sessions Trial is currently pending before the Sessions Court, Katni not require to further delay in view of the facts, documents, statements and evidence as available on record. Therefore, he prays for dismissing the petition filed by the applicant.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution, it appears that a fortress checking was initiated by the Railway Board for checking of the tickets and more than 70 Ticket Collectors were deployed including with the present petitioner/applicant. Also the force of RPF was deployed for maintaining the law and order. Under such circumstances, there was no enmity of the applicant with those 39 passengers that they would have tortured and snatched the money from them. When various Ticket Collectors were deployed and RPF force was also deployed, then there was no need to the applicant, who is Chief Ticket Inspector in the railway to do something in person. It would be apparent that since the persons, who were participating in the rally without taking any appropriate tickets were caught red handed and penalty was recovered, then being a counter blast such FIR was lodged. Some of the witnesses have stated against the applicant under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, but it appears that their statements are narrated after thought. If the passengers had appropriate tickets, then certainly there was no need to take any sum from them. It is alleged that money was snatched from the various persons and Ticket Collector Hajari took the money from the lady victim by inserting his hand in her blouse. However, such incident was not possible because in recovery of the penalty and fine, there was no personal interest to the staff members. On the contrary, they have followed the due process for recovering of the fine amount. Therefore, there was no need to any of the Ticket Collectors to snatch money in forceful manner. The applicant/petitioner is implicated in this case after thought being aggrieved by checking progamme, because a raid was conducted upon all those passengers, who were travelling without any appropriate ticket.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Hariyana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604 has issued some guidelines in pursuant to exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process and also to secure the ends of the justice. In para 108 the Hon’ble Court has held as under:—
“108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though 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.
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 F.I.R 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 F.I.R 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 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”.
8. From careful reading of the guidelines issued in above cited case, this Court has found that the facts of the present case are comes under the purview of guidelines Nos. 1 and 5 whereas the allegation made under the FIR are looking prime facie absurd and improbable, because it is evident from the FIR that all the proceedings were conducted in the presence of Magistrate under his instruction. On the basis of aforesaid, this Court cannot reach to this conclusion that the petitioner/applicant has committed an aforesaid offence. Moreover, vide order dated 27.01.2014 passed in M.Cr.C No. 15288/2013, this Court has already dropped the proceedings against the co-accused persons with the observation in the favour of present applicant/petitioner Hazare against the allegation of misbehaved with the ladies by mentioning that the such incident was not possible because in recovery of the penalty and fine there was no personal interest to the staff members.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, and the guidelines issued in above cited case, it would be apparent that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter. No act in commission of offence has been done by the applicant. Consequently, the present petition filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and the FIR registered against the applicant at Police Station GRP Katni vide Crime No. 434/2013 is hereby quashed.
10. The police GRP Katni is directed to drop the name of the applicant from the case. If trial is pending, then the trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings against the present applicant.