SAMAR SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of order dated 07/02/2017 passed in Criminal Case No.959/2016 by the ACJM, District-Indore and order dated 28/06/2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.179/2017 by the ASJ/Special Judge, Electricity Act, Indore whereby charges has been framed for the offence punishable under Section 324 (two counts) of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act against the petitioner at Crime No.868/2015 at police Station-Bhanwarkuan, Indore.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, petitioner got married on 12/12/2002 with Smt. Manju Parmar and out of the wedlock, on 15/07/2006, one male child namely Divyaraj Singh Parmar was born. In the month of August, 2014, wife of the petitioner Smt. Manju Parmar suffered in clinical depression and she has been treated by her father's friend and Physiatrist Doctor Tandan at Bhopal. Due to adamant nature his wife frequently visiting Bhopal. On 23/10/2015, wife of the petitioner made a false complaint at Mahila Thana, Indore. On 28/10/2015, the petitioner alongwith his 85 years old father, sister, his son and driver were going for check-up by car, near Tower Square at traffic signal, his wife ­ Manju alongwith her parents and 4-5 anti social element started braking the glass of the Car. They were using abusive filthy language and urging car passengers to come out. In the meanwhile, on hooligan sprayed chilly spray on petitioner's face and police officers and other persons started beating the petitioner and his family by means of stick, rod and pistol butt. Due to this circumstances to save himself and his family, petitioner pulled out licensed 0.25 revolver, which is in the name of his father and fired two three shots in air in self defence. Due to this fire, attackers ran away from the spot alongwith petitioner's 10 years old son Divyaraj Singh Parmar. Thereafter, police registered FIR at crime No.868/2015 against the petitioner.

(3.) It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that ever changing statement are sufficient to show that allegations levelled against the petitioner is false and fabricated, therefore, he prayed for quashing of charges framed against the petitioner by allowing this petition.