The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that mere giving of meal to those who are proclaimed offenders is not an offence within the meaning of Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anil Verma allowed the petition filed for quashing of First Information Report (FIR) registered at Police Station – Station Road, Ratlam for offences punishable under Section 224, 120-B, 212 and 216 of the IPC and consequential proceedings including Criminal Case pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam.
The facts of the case was that the complainant (Constable) gave a complaint before the Police Station – Station Road, Ratlam by stating that the present applicant and other co-accused helped in absconding the accused, who was in custody for the offence punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and another case.
On September 20, 2018, the co-accused was brought before the Ratlam Court by the police officials, then with the help of applicant and other co-accused persons he fled away and absconded from the custody of the police officials. Therefore, a complaint was filed at Station Road Police Station, Ratlam and an offence has been registered.
Harish Chandra Tripathi, Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was an old lady aged about 52 years. She has been implicated in the offence only on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the co-accused persons. Nothing has been recovered from her possession. FIR is very inconceivable. The applicant is the permanent resident of Indore district. An FIR is completely an abuse of the process of law. In order to harass the applicant and her family members, a false FIR has been launched against her.
Per contra, Counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the application by submitting that prima facie evidence collected during the investigation, there was sufficient ample evidence available on record, which directly connected the applicant with the alleged crime. Therefore, no interference is warranted.
While considering the petition, the Bench observed that the applicant gave a bag of absconded accused but nothing has been found on record that the present applicant directly met with the accused and also helped him from being apprehended.
The Court observed that to establish an offence under Section 216 of IPC, it must be shown first that,
(i) there has been an order for the apprehension of a certain person as being guilty of an offence;
(ii) knowledge by the accused party of that order; and
(iii) that harbouring or concealing by the accused of the person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended.
In the instant case, the only allegation against the applicant is that she helped her husband, who is the main accused in absconding from the legal custody. The story narrated by the complainant in his FIR is highly inconceivable and doubtful, the Court held.
The applicant has been accused on the basis of a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the co-accused person, but nothing has been recovered from his possession. Therefore, in the eyes of law, there is no evidential value of the aforesaid memorandum.
“The word ‘harbour’ used in Section 216 of IPC must be construed liberally. The person at whose instance harbouring is effected commits the offence, but mere giving of meal to those who are proclaimed offenders is not an offence within the meaning of Section 216 because in the absence of any evidence to that effect it cannot be held that the intention of the applicant / accused was to prevent the main accused from being apprehended. It must be shown that it was with an intention of preventing the harboured man from being apprehended”, the Court held.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found that the applicant is the wife of the main accused, but she neither met her husband directly nor helped him in any manner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution has failed to prove that the applicant was harbouring the main accused with an intention to prevent the harboured person from being apprehended. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error in framing charges against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 216 and 120-B of IPC.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered view that the prosecution of the applicant tantamount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is a fit case where the inherent power conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR and further proceedings including the proceedings pending in Criminal Case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam and order of framing charges against the applicant are hereby quashed.