UPENDRA PATWARDHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.0074/2024 registered at Police Station Sanjeevani Nagar, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Ss. 294 and 506 of IPC and under Sec. 3(1)(s) and 3 (2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 and all subsequent proceedings.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the petitioner has been recorded and charge sheet has been filed. It is submitted that no primafacie offence is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, contentions of the FIR are liable to be questioned as they contain only vague and omnibus allegations without specifying any overt act or role attributed to the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that an FIR must disclose clear, specific, and prima facie cognizable offences; however, in the present case, the allegations are omnibus in nature and lack material particulars such as date, time, place, and manner of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that someone behind the complainant who have lodged the FIR as a counter blast. It is further submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 710 .

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that the material collected during investigation discloses prima facie commission of offences and that the issues raised by the petitioner are matters of trial.