1 M.Cr.C No.

50236/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 25th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50236 of 2024
DHARMENDRA JADON AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Trishant Mishra, Advocate for applicants
Shri Dinesh Savita, Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State

ORDER

This application, under section 482 of CrPC (S.528 of BNSS), has

been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 363/2022 registered at
Police Station Vijaypur, District Sheopur for offences under sections 323,
294, 506, 34 and 327 of IPC as well as further proceedings in RCT
number 345/2024.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that complainant Shiv
Shankar Jadoun is the son of Bhupendra Singh who is brother-in-law of
the applicant. Bhupendra Singh was having enmity with applicants and,
accordingly, he got an FIR registered from wife of his younger brother
against son of applicant Dharmendra Jadon at Police Station Lasudia,
District Indore for offences under sections 376, 384 and 506 of IPC. It is
alleged that younger brother of co-brother-in-law (Saadu) of applicant
namely Jai Singh and his wife 'X' were residing in the same house where

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 2 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

son of applicant namely Vivek was residing. During this period Vivek and
'X' came nearer and developed love relations. When family members of
both the families came to know about their relation, then they tried to
convince Vivek and 'X'. Later on, Vivek was called back by applicant to
Gwalior and his marriage was performed. However, 'X' was interested in
continuing relationship with Vivek and accordingly Bhupendra Singh
started raising illegal demand of money from applicant. Since applicant
could not fulfill his demand, therefore a false FIR in question has been
lodged for offences under sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. Later on,
offence under section 327 of IPC was also added. It is submitted that on
the date of incident, applicants were present in their house at Sabalgarh
which is evident from CCTV footage of the Short Circuit Camera installed
outside their house and thus it is submitted that FIR has been lodged on
false allegations and out of malafide.
3. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
State.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties.
5. The FIR has been questioned mainly on two grounds - (i) plea of
alibi i.e. applicants were present elsewhere which they want to project by
referring to the CCTV footage of Short Circuit Camera installed outside
their house and; (ii) on account of malafide.
Plea of alibi:
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Pal v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 749 has held as under :
25. At this juncture, we think it apt to deal with the plea of alibi that
has been put forth by the appellant. As is demonstrable, the trial
court has discarded the plea of alibi. When a plea of alibi is taken
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 3 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

by an accused, burden is upon him to establish the same by positive

evidence after onus as regards presence on the spot is established
by the prosecution. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a
few paragraphs from Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar: (SCC p.
293, paras 22-23)
“22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special
or general) envisaged in the Penal Code, 1860 or any other law. It is
only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence
Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are
relevant. Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth
reproducing in this context:
‘(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a
certain day. The fact that, on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.’
23. The Latin word alibi means ‘elsewhere’ and that word is used
for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line
that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the
place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would
have participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal
case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical
injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove
that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the
crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the
accused has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in
such cases need be considered only when the burden has been
discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the
prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on
the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute
certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the
place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene
of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the
prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be
slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he was
elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence
adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard
that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his
presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused
would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt.
For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down
that, in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 4 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for

establishing the plea of alibi.”
(emphasis supplied)
The said principle has been reiterated in Gurpreet Singh v. State of
Haryana, Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra and Jitender Kumar v.
State of Haryana.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Sattar v. State of

Maharashtra, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 430 has held as under :

35. Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay

upon the appellant. The appellant herein has miserably failed to
bring on record any facts or circumstances which would make the
plea of his absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi had to be proved with absolute
certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence
of the appellant in the rented premises at the relevant time. When a
plea of alibi is raised by an accused it is for the accused to establish
the said plea by positive evidence which has not been led in the
present case. We may also notice here at this stage the proposition
of law laid down in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Haryana as follows:
(SCC p. 27, para 20)
“20. … This plea of alibi stands disbelieved by both the courts and
since the plea of alibi is a question of fact and since both the courts
concurrently found that fact against the appellant, the accused, this
Court in our view, cannot on an appeal by special leave go behind
the abovenoted concurrent finding of fact.”
36. But it is also correct that, even though the plea of alibi of the
appellant is not established, it was for the prosecution to prove the
case against the appellant. To this extent, the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant was correct. The failure of the
plea of alibi would not necessarily lead to the success of the
prosecution case which has to be independently proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Being aware of the aforesaid
principle of law, the trial court as also the High Court examined the
circumstantial evidence to exclude the possibility of the innocence
of the appellant.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 5 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Binay Kumar Singh v. State of

Bihar, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 283 has held as under:

22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special

or general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. It
is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence
Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are
relevant. Illustration (a) given under the provision is worth
reproducing in this context:
“The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a
certain date; the fact that on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.”
23. The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that word is
used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a
defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far
away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely
improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is a
basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged
to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is
on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the
scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be
lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the
defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be
considered only when the burden has been discharged by the
prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in
discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who
adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to
exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.
When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has
been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable
evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any
counter-evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the
occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused
is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may
entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the
scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no
doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that
purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 6 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It

follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the
plea of alibi. This Court has observed so on earlier occasions
(vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.; State of Maharashtra v.
Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple.''

Thus, it is clear that so far as defence of plea of alibi is concerned, it is

required to be proved by leading cogent evidence and it cannot be proved
by preponderance of probabilities.
9. Even otherwise in the light of judgments passed by the Supreme
Court in the cases of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 SCC
337, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5
SCC 718, Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12
SCC 319, Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019)
13 SCC 350, State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11
SCC 226, M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC
373, CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686, State of MP
Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A.
No.709/2021, Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 5
SCC 678, Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC
221, State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, reported in (2012) 4 SCC
547, S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600,
Sangeeta Agrawal v. State of U.P., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336, Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in
(2012) 12 SCC 437 and M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in
(2009) 9 SCC 682, this Court can quash the proceedings only if the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 7 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence. Furthermore, this

Court in exercise of powers under S..482 of Cr.P.C. (S.528 of BNSS)
cannot conduct a roving enquiry to hold as to whether the allegations
made in the FIR are correct or not. Thus, if the uncontroverted allegations
are considered, then it is clear that the complainant was beaten by
applicants and illegal demand was raised.
Malafides
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay
Kumar and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346 has held as under:-

9. “8. Exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in a

case of this nature is the exception and not the rule.
The section does not confer any new powers on the
High Court. It only saves the inherent power which
the Court possessed before the enactment of CrPC. It
envisages three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to
give effect to an order under CrPC, (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which
would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can
provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The
courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from
express provisions of law which are necessary for
proper discharge of functions and duties imposed
upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds
expression in the section which merely recognises
and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts.
All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the
absence of any express provision, as inherent in their
constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do
the right and to undo a wrong in the course of
administration of justice on the principle of quando
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 8 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id

sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law
gives a person anything, it gives him that without
which it cannot exist). While exercising the powers
under the section, the court does not function as a
court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction
under the section, though wide, has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for
the administration of which alone the courts exist.
Authority of the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the
power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of
process of the court to allow any action which would
result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
exercise of the powers the court would be justified to
quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no
offence is disclosed by the report, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a report is sought
to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the
materials to assess what the report has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the
allegations are accepted in toto.
9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960
SC 866 : (1960) 3 SCR 388] this Court summarised
some categories of cases where inherent power can
and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance e.g. want of
sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information
report or complaint taken at their face value and

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 9 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence

alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge. (AIR p. 869)
10. In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction between a
case where there is no legal evidence or where there
is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the
accusations made, and a case where there is legal
evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not
support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
Judicial process should not be an instrument of
oppression, or, needless harassment. The court should
be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion
and should take all relevant facts and circumstances
into consideration before issuing process, lest it
would be an instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person
needlessly. At the same time the section is not an
instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit
a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The
scope of exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC
and the categories of cases where the High Court
may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable
offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in
some detail by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604] . A note of
caution was, however, added that the power should
be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 10 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by

this Court are as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79, para
102)
‘(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 11 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.’
11. As noted above, the powers possessed by
the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires
great caution in its exercise. The court must be
careful to see that its decision, in exercise of this
power, is based on sound principles. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. The High Court being the highest court
of a State should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts
are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence
has not been collected and produced before the Court
and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are
of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no
hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases
in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding
at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 :
AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State
of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1].] It
would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the
case of the complainant in the light of all
probabilities in order to determine whether a
conviction would be sustainable and on such
premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings
are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the
material before it and conclude that the complaint
cannot be proceeded with. When an information is
lodged at the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the informant would
be of secondary importance. It is the material

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 12 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

collected during the investigation and evidence led in

the court which decides the fate of the accused
person. The allegations of mala fides against the
informant are of no consequence and cannot by
themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.
[See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar [1990
Supp SCC 686 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 142] , State of
Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 192] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal
Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
1059] , State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan [(1999) 2 SCC
651 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 304] , State of U.P. v. O.P.
Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
497] , Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397 : 1997 SCC (Cri)
415], Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) [(1999) 8 SCC 728 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1503]
and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3
SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] .]”
The above position was again reiterated in State of
Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [(2002) 3 SCC 89 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 539] , State of M.P. v. Awadh
Kishore Gupta [(2004) 1 SCC 691 : 2004 SCC (Cri)
353] and State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar
Sahoo [(2005) 13 SCC 540 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 272]
, SCC pp. 547-50, paras 8-11."
Thus, it is clear that if the allegations made in the FIR make out a
cognizable offence, then malafides of the informant becomes secondary.
11. Furthermore, enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, if it
provides motive for false implication of an accused, then at the same time
it also provides motive for commission of offence. Therefore, it is a
disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of
powers under section 482 of CrPC.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
 13 M.Cr.C No.50236/2024

12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the
court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
interference.
Accordingly, application fails and is, hereby, dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM