MANISH KUMAR KARTROLIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Balwant Singh Kushwaha, Counsel for the applicant. Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that on 2nd of April, 2018, a procession was being taken by the members of reserved category against certain provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. When the procession reached near Lohiya Check Bazar, Lahar, 300 persons who were the members of the procession started trying to forcibly shutdown the market. The persons, who were the members of the procession, were insisting that in case, if the shops are not shutdown and shopkeeper do not support the call of Bharat Band, then they will be treated. However, those persons were informed that it is illegal to get the market closed, but they did not stop. Manish S/o Shivlal was also one of the members of the procession. Members of the procession were forcibly compelling the shopkeepers to shutdown their shops and when the police requested them not to act in such a manner and tried to restrain the members of the procession from closing down the market, then one person amongst the mob threw a stone on the complainant (SHO), which hit on right side of his back. When the police tried to disperse the mob, then the mob went to the police station and started pelting stones on the police station, as a result, not only, property of the police station was damaged, but constable Anil Tomar also suffered an injury below his eye. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact, the applicant was not present at the time of procession/agitation and he had gone to Leh and Ladakh. It is further submitted that in case, if this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR qua the applicant, then he may be granted protection from his arrest. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record that Manish S/o Shivlal mentioned in the FIR is the applicant and not some other person.

(3.) Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that so far as the question of plea of alibi is concerned, it is a defence, which is required to be proved by the applicant by leading cogent evidence. In the FIR, not only, name of the applicant is mentioned, but his father's name is also mentioned and it is not the case of the applicant that some other Manish is there who is also the son of Shivlal.