Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR lodged for crime under Section 380 and 454 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), alleging false implication, a single-judge bench comprising of Subodh Abhyankar, J., held that court cannot solely rely on the FIR to quash it and must consider disputed factual matters. The Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR and imposed a cost of Rs.1,50,000/- on each party all parties “for fighting tooth and nails over their ancestral property”, to be deposited within 15 days into the specified account.
In the instant matter, the respondent 2 filed an FIR against the petitioner alleging theft under Sections 380 and 454 of the IPC, stating that the petitioner-landlord illegally took possession of a shop despite a court injunction. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which was granted by the High Court. The objectors challenged the bail order in the Supreme Court, which affirmed the bail but waived the imposed cost. The matter was extensively argued before the Court, with multiple documents filed by both parties.
The Court noted that the disputed questions regarding the petitioner’s status in the house, the validity of decrees against respondent 2, and the subsequent eviction suit couldn’t be adjudicated upon in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Additionally, the Court criticized the conduct of the parties’ counsels for treating the Court as a playground and argued that they owe a duty to the court to argue responsibly. Consequently, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs.1,50,000/- on all parties involved.
[Girish Mehta v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1789, order dated 02-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain, Counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Harshlata Snoi, G.A., Counsel for the State
Shri Rishti Agrawal, Counsel for the Objector
Shri Brijesh Garg, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
