NARENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.01/2018 registered at Police Station AJK, Gwalior for offence under Sections 353 , 294 , 506 , 3(1)(r) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the complainant/respondent No.2 has lodged a FIR on 23/02/2018 at about 15:00, on the allegation that on 20/02/2018 at about 13:00, the petitioner had abused and humiliated the respondents No.2 and 3 by calling them by their caste name and had also extended the threat. It was alleged in the FIR that the respondent No.2 is working on the post of Assistant Grade-III, Municipal Corporation, Dabra. On 20/02/2018 when he was discharging his duty in the office along with In-charge Revenue Inspector Ramesh Singh Sengar, at that time, the petitioner came there and started abusing them and humiliated them by calling them by their caste name. The files which were kept on the table were thrown. He also alleged that the respondent No.2 is showing too much interest for mutation of name of Nidhi Gupta. He also challenged that he would beat the respondent No.2 by shoes in the mid of the market and he also extended a threat that he would ensure that the respondent No.2 is dismissed from service. When the other officers tried to intervene in the matter, then they too were abused by the petitioner.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses, who were named in the FIR, have given an affidavit to the effect that no such incident had taken place. In fact, one Kamla Bai who is the owner of survey No.323/2 part 50/100, had executed an agreement to sell on 26/08/2015 in favour of one Rajesh Sharma and said Rajesh Sharma, in his turn, had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner on 23/09/2015, but Kamla Bai, in a fraudulent manner, executed a sale deed in favour of one Nidhi Gupta on 05/05/2016 and 06/05/2016 and thereafter, Nidhi Gupta on the strength of the said sale deed, had filed an application for mutation of her name in the record of the Municipal Corporation which was objected by the petitioner and it was prayed that the name of Nidhi Gupta should not be mutated on the basis of forged sale deed and the suit has also been filed, which is pending but the respondents No. 2 and 3 had mutated the name of Nidhi Gupta by misusing their powers. Accordingly, the petitioner had made a complaint against the respondents No.2 and 3 on the CM Helpline and, therefore, the respondents No.2 and 3 were pressurizing the petitioner to withdraw the complaint and when the petitioner refused to withdraw the same, the false FIR in question has been lodged by way of counter-blast. It is submitted that therefore, the the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, is liable to be quashed.