SALIM KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has preferred the present revision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, which is registered at Crime No.281/09 at Police Station Kotwali, Mandla by which the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 452 of IPC were registered against the applicant.

(2.) FACTS of the case, in short are that, the applicant was serving as a junior engineer in M.P.S.E.B. Initially, on 15.1.2009 an inspection was done in the house of the respondent No.2 and it was found that various insulation seals of the electric meter were found damaged and a case of energy theft was prepared. The respondent No.2 objected the preparation of the matter and he reached before the higher officers of Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Mandla. He had also moved before the consumer forum, Mandla. Ultimately, his connection was disconnected. On 9.4.2009, he sent a complaint to the S.P. Mandla that on 24.3.2009, the applicant entered into his house and he abused the respondent No.2 but the respondent No.2 was not present in the house therefore, he abused with obscene words and gave threat to the ladies present in the house of the respondent No.2 and also he pushed the ladies. It was also mentioned that a report was sent to S.H.O. Kotwali, Mandla on 24.3.2009. The S.P. Mandla sent that report to the S.H.O. Kotwali and therefore, a case was registered.

(3.) SECONDLY , an FIR sent to the S.P. Mandla by the respondent No.2 was sent with the delay of at least 16 days. In the alleged FIR (the document 11 filed by the respondent No.2), it is mentioned that the FIR dated 24.3.3009 lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Mandla was annexed with the FIR sent to the S.P. but neither the copy of such FIR was submitted before this Court nor was annexed with the FIR sent to the S.P. concerned and no copy of such an FIR is shown. When it was inquired from the case diary then, a typed letter was found annexed with the FIR sent to the S.P. and that typed letter was addressed to S.H.O. Kotwali, but neither the respondent No.2 appended his signature on that letter nor any receipt is shown on that paper so that it can be said that on 24.3.3009, any FIR was lodged before the S.H.O. Kotwali, Mandla and therefore, the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 to the S.P. was highly delayed. It was not established that the respondent No.2 sent any FIR to S.H.O. concerned. When the respondent No.2 was taking every steps against the applicant to file a case then, he could have sent a notice to the applicant through his counsel or he could have sent a complaint to the higher officers of the applicant or the FIR should have been lodged on the same day. Under such circumstances, looking to the conduct of the respondent No.2 that, he did not lodge any FIR at Police Station Kotwali, Mandla but he prepared a typed document to show that he sent an FIR to the Police Station, Mandla and by that apprehension, the S.P. Mandla directed to register a case.