Case Title:
Sarita Bai Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Order:
01.11.2022
Judge :
Justice Anil Verma
Parties:
Applicant : Sarita Bai
Respondent : The State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer Through Police Station Station Road, Ratlam District Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh)
Subject
The word “harbor” under Section 216 of IPC is to be interpreted literally. Mere giving food to proclaimed offenders is not an offence. The person at whose instance harboring was affected is said to have committed the offence. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the applicant was harboring the main accused with the intent of preventing the person from being apprehended, the proceedings were quashed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
1) Section 216 Indian Penal Code, 1860
216. Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered.—Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody; or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours of conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following that is to say,— if a capital offence.—if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.—if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided or such offence, or with fine, or with both. 2[“Offence” in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of 3[India], which, if he had been guilty of it in 3[India], would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, 4[***] or otherwise, liable to be appre-hended or detained in custody in 3[India]; and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in 3[India].]
(Exception) —This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the person to be apprehended.
2) Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
3) Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
BRIEF FACTS
Apetition was filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing FIR registered at Police Station – Station Road, Ratlam bearing Crime No.572/2018 for offences punishable under Section 224. 120 B, 212, and 216 of IPC. Consequential proceedings including Criminal Case No.1957/2018 was also pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam.
The complainant, Ravi Pahadiya, Constable complained toRatlam Police Station and alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused persons, helped the accused to abscond who was in custody for an offence punishable under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The co-accused Banti @ Mahipal, on 20/09/2018 was produced before the Ratlam Court by police officials. With the help of the applicant and co-accused, he fled the scene and absconded from police custody. A complaint was filed as a result at Ratlam Police Station and the offence has been registered.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPLICANT’S COUNSEL
Shri Harish Chandra Tripathi argued on behalf of the applicant who is an old lady aged 52 years. She has been alleged to be part of the offence based on the memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act given by the co-accused. No recovery was made from his possession and FIR was inconceivable.
The applicant is a permanent resident of Indore. It was arguedthat FIR was abusive of the process of law and was filed with an intent to harbor the applicant and her family members. The FIR launched against her was argued to be false. It was prayed that the FIR with Crime No.572/2018 and proceeding in Criminal Case No. 1957/2018 pending before JMFC, Ratlam should be quashed.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL
Shri Govind Rohit, arguing on behalf of the respondent, contended the application by submitting prima facie evidence from the investigation. They said that there is ample evidence available on the record that established a connection between the applicant and the alleged crime and thus no interference is warranted. It is well-settled law that the jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 CrPC is wide and if proceedings result in abuse of the Court process, then the High Court can quash such proceedings by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
JUDGMENT
The Trial Court has framed charges against Sarita Bai for an offence punishable under Section 216 read with Section 120 B of IPC. After examining the statements of Sachin Telang and Girish Kalra, it might have indicated that the applicant gave a bag to Banti who absconded to her relative Goldy. However, no proof on record was there to establish that the applicant met with Banti and helped him from being apprehended.
For an offence to be punishable under Section 216 of IPC, it must be proved that there has been an order for the apprehension of a person being guilty of an offence, knowledge of the order for the accused, and harboring or concealing accused with the object to prevent him from being apprehended. In the present case, there is only one allegation against the applicant for helping her husband, the main accused, Banti in absconding from legal custody. The chain of incidents in the FIR was highly doubtful.
The applicant was accused based ona memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act given by the co-accused. Since nothing was retrieved from his possession, there is no evidential value in the eyes of law.
The term “harbor” used in Section 216 of IPC shall be construed with liberal interpretation. The person who helped in harboring an offender commits an offence, merely providing a meal to the proclaimed offender cannot be deemed as an offence under Section 216 as lack of evidence to the same does not amount to the intention of the applicant or accused from preventing the accused being apprehended. It must be proved that there was an intention to prevent the harbored person from being apprehended.
In light of the facts of the case, the applicant, the wife of the main accused Banti had neither met her husband nor helped him. The prosecution has failed to prove that the applicant was harboring the main accused toprevent him from being apprehended. The trial court was held to have committed an error in framing charges under Sections 216 and 120 B of IPC against the applicant. The High Court of Madhya Pradeshheld that the prosecution of the applicant is tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and is a case where inherent power conferred under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised.
The petition is allowed and the FIR dates 30.09.2018 registered at Crime No.572/2018 at Ratlam Police Station against the applicants under Sections 120 B, 212, 216 and 224 of IPC have been quashed. All further proceedings and the pending proceedings in Criminal Case No.1957/2018 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam, and charges against the applicant were quashed. The petition under Section 482 CrPC was allowed.
