Imtiyaz Murtaza, K.N.Ojha - (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at Case Crime No. 62 of 2007 under Sections 395, 397, 384 and 506, I.P.C., police station Bargarh, district Chitrakoot lodged by respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chand Jain.
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the first information report the informant is proprietor of firm Vardhman Industrial and Trading Corporation B.K.D. College Chauraha, Gwalior Road, Jhansi and deals in the business of purchasing scrap in auction from railways. On 26.6.2007, he purchased iron scrap of P.W. 1 Shankargarh. After purchasing the said scrap he received a telephone call from the Mobile No. 9336840875 of Mohd. Shahjad who is an associate of Atiq Ahmad, Member of Parliament threatening him that he had committed big mistake by purchasing the goods and he should be ready for heavy financial losses and reminded him that earlier also an attack was made on him at the office of P.W. 1, Shankergarh and at that time Jafar Bhai, Farooq Bhai and Shaulat Vakeel warned him that he should not purchase the goods at Shankergarh and Allahabad and also threatened him not to register the F.I.R. otherwise he will be killed. It was further mentioned in the report that he tried to lodge the report against them but on account of influence of Atiq Ahmad, he could not lodge the report. He did not succumb to the threats extended to him and between 1.8.2007 and 4.8.2007 he started lifting the iron of P.W.I. Shankergarh and in the night at about 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. on 4.8.2007 when his loaded Truck was parked near Madhyamik Vidyalay, Kataiya Dandi Road near Police Station, Bargarh in a planned manner the persons named in the report through Aslam and 15-20 persons forcibly looted the goods and loaded the same in Truck No. UP 60-T 0687 and his three chaukidar Jai Prakas, Naim Khan and Sunil Raikwar were assaulted on the point of gun and money was also snatched from their pockets and after tying them with a rope they escaped alongwith the looted iron. His chaukidar, Jai Prakash informed him on telephone about the incident and told him that they had also demanded Rs. two lacs from him and also threatened him not to purchase the goods otherwise he will be killed. After receiving the information he came to Bargarh from Allahabad and lodged the report. We have heard Shri Satish Trivedi, Shri S. M. A. Kazmi and Shri D. S. Misra, senior counsels, learned counsels for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Shri Satish Trivedi submitted that the petitioner is a practising lawyer having 21 years of experience and whenever Bahujan Samaj Party comes into power the members of Samajwadi Party are falsely roped in different criminal cases. The petitioner was representing Atiq Ahmad in several cases and has been falsely implicated only on account of his professional relationship with Atiq Ahmad. It is further submitted that the allegations of the F.I.R. are highly improbable and no prudent man will believe the allegations to be true and from bare perusal of the F.I.R. it cannot be said that any allegations in the report attracts the cognizable offence against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has been mentioned alongwith other accused persons without mentioning his participation about the incident for which report has been lodged and further argued that the allegations made against the petitioner are vague and do not constitute cognizable offence. Shri S. M. A. Kazmi senior advocate submitted that on account of political reasons several reports have been registered against the petitioner. In two F.I.Rs. which were registered against the petitioner his arrest had been stayed on the ground that the petitioner was an advocate and he represented Atiq Ahmad, Member of Parliament as his counsel. It is further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is mala fide and also placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, wherein it has been held that "the extraordinary powers under Article 226 or the inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be exercised by the High Court where the allegation made in the F.I.R. 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 and where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the 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 and 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."
(3.) SRI Kazmi further submitted that no allegations have been made against the petitioner which could attract the penal provisions and the allegations made in the impugned report are highly improbable. It was pointed out that according to the averments made in the report the Truck in which the goods were looted had covered only two kms. in 12 hours before it was recovered by the police and no prudent man can believe these allegations as true. Attentions of the Court was also drawn to paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the petition where other instances were mentioned about registration of false reports against the lawyers of Atiq Ahmad. Shri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that the first informant is not an eye-witness and he lodged the report on the basis of information given by his chaukidar and this fact cannot be accepted that the petitioner was known to the chaukidar of the informant from before.;