Back
2001 (1) JLJ 319
S.S. Saraf, J.
Digvijay Singh, C.M. and others v. Arvind Singh Bhadoriya
Cr. Revn. No. 48 of 2000; against the order of L.D. Borsi,
C J M Bhopal, passed in Cri.. Case No. 7975 of 1999; Decided on 4.9.2000.
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 166 -- rules of business under -- Advocate General may be authorised by Competent Officer of Law and Legislative Affairs Department of Government to act as per direction of the Government. [Para 7
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 397/401 -- revision under -- can be entertained by the High Court suo motu. [Para 7
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 109 and 325 -- Chief Minister -- cannot be expected either to instigate/ abetor conspire in beating of complainant -- it seems to be a piece of imagination or deliberate step to gain political milage.
The learned CJM appears to have registered the complaint not only on the basis of the above facts disclosed by the complainant, but also on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 holding the office of Chief Minister could exercise his influence and therefore had he so intended and desired, he could have restrained the police officers from beating the respondent. The learned Magistrate has, further, observed that by not restraining the police including the petitioner No. 2 and 3 from beating the respondent, the petitioner No.1 not only displayed lack of human consideration, but he also abstained from doing his legal duty, as a result of which the alleged offence was committed by the petitioners No.2 and 3. [Para 12
Held: Having given thoughtful consideration to the above reasoning of the learned Magistrate, I find myself unable to accept it. Admittedly the police officers were deputed for maintaining public order and since the respondent was obstructing public order, it was incumbent and in fact their duty to act promptly, to maintain public order. It was not for the Chief Minister to specifically ask the police officers to maintain public order. The facts given in the complaint and the statements recorded under section 200 and 202 CrPC that the Chief Minister asked the police officers to beat the respondent and his other companions are inherently improbable. A prudent person cannot accept such far fetched allegations and make, them a ground for proceeding against the petitioner No. 1 for offences under sections 109 and 325 IPC. It does not appear that the Chief Minister, the petitioner No.1, either instigated or conspired in beating the respondent, or intentionally aided the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in doing so. The omission or commission attributed to the petitioner No.1 appear either as a piece of imagination or a deliberate step to gain political milage, on the part of respondent. [Para 13
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 109 and 325 -- Chief minister directing police to remove slogan shouters -- it does not amount that he abetted or instigated offence under S. 325. [Para 14
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 203 -- offence under S. 325 IPC -- no specific role in beating attributed against accused -- such accused cannot be proceeded against. [Para 16
(7) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 204 -- offence under S. 325 IPC -- prima facie case al enquiry stage made out -- accused should be proceeded against.
There is prima facie material on record to establish that the respondent was slapped by the petitioner No.3 and consequently the ear-drum of the left ear of the respondent was torn and the blood started oozing out. It is the settled law that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the stage of final hearing is not to be applied at the stage of registering a criminal case against the accused. Since there is prima facie material on record for registering a case against the petitioner No.3, the impugned order so far as it relates to the registration of the criminal case for offence under section 325, IPC suffers from no infirmity and therefore needs no interference by this Court. [Para 17
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk && /kkjk 397@401 && iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk && izkjafHkd ekeyk eq[; ea=h vkSj drZO;k:<+ iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) && muds fo:) ekeyk O;fDrxr gSfl;r ls && ljdkj [kpZ ogu djus vkSj mudh izfrj{kk djus dk fofu‘p; dj ldrh gS && ,sls funs‘k ij iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gSA ¿ iSjk 6 ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 166 && ds v/khu dk;Z lapkyu ds fu;e && ljdkj ds fof/k vkSj fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx ds l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk ljdkj ds funs‘kkuqlkj dk;Z djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397@401 && ds v/khu iqujh{k.k && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Loizsj.kk ls xzg.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 109 rFkk 325 && eq[; ea=h }kjk ifjoknh dh fiVkbZ ds fy, mdlkus ;k nq"izsj.k vFkok ""kM~;a= dh vis{kk ugh dh tk ldrh && ;g dYiuk&izlwr vFkok jktuhfrd Qk;nk izkIr djus dk lqfopkfjr mik; gks ldrk gSA izrhr gksrk gS fd fo}ku eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV us dsoy ifjoknh }kjk izdV fd, mi;qZDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij gh ifjokn jftLVj ugha fd;k] vfirq bl vk/kkj ij Hkh fd;k fd eq[; ea=h dk in /kkj.k djus okys ;kph Ø-1 }kjk viuk izHkko iz;qDr fd;k tk ldrk Fkk vkSj blfy,] ;fn mldk oSlk vk‘k; gksrk vkSj mldh oSlh bPNk gksrh] og iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dks izR;FkhZ dks ihVus ls jksd ldrk FkkA fo}ku eftLVªsV us ;g vkSj leqfDr dh gS fd ;kph Ø- 2 vkSj 3 lfgr iqfyl dks izR;FkhZ dks ihVus ls ugha jksd dj ;kph Ø- 1 us u dsoy ekuoh; fygkt dh U;wurk iznf‘kZr dh vfirq mldh vksj ls mlds fof/k drZO; ls Hkh P;qfr gqbZ ftls ifj.kke Lo:i ;kphx.k Ø- 2 rFkk 3 }kjk vfHkdfFkr vijk/k dkfjr fd;k x;kA ¿ iSjk 12 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fo}ku eftLVªsV ds mi;qZDr foospu ij xaHkhjrkiwoZd fopkj djus ij eSa blls lger ugha gks ik;k gw¡A Lohd`r :i ls mDr iqfyl vf/kdkjh yksd O;oLFkk cuk, j[kus ds fy, izfrfu;qDr fd, x, Fks vkSj D;ksafd izR;FkhZ yksd O;oLFkk esa ck/kk Mky jgk Fkk] ;g ykfteh Fkk vkSj oLrqr% ;g mudk drZO; Fkk fd os yksd O;oLFkk dk;e j[kus ds fy, rqjar dkjZokbz djrsA ;g eq[; ea=h dk dk;Z ugha Fkk fd os yksd O;oLFkk dk;e j[kus ds fy, iqfyl ls fofufnZ"Vr% dgrsA ifjokn esa vkSj naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 200 rFkk 202 ds v/khu vfHkfyf[kr dFkuksa esa crk, x, rF; fd izR;FkhZ vkSj mlds lkfFk;ksa dks ihVus ds fy, eq[; ea=h }kjk dgk x;k] ;g varfuZfgr :i ls vlaHkkO; gSA dksbZ izKkoku O;fDr ,sls vLokHkkfod vfHkdFku Lohdkj ugha dj ldrk vkSj ;kph Ø- 1 ds fo:) Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 109 rFkk 325 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh ds fy, mudks vk/kkj ugha cuk ldrkA ;g izrhr ugha gksrk fd eq[; ea=h ;kph Ø- 1 us izR;FkhZ dks ihVus ds fy, mdlk;k vFkok ""kM~;a= fd;k vFkok ;kphx.k Ø- 2 rFkk 3 dks oSlk djus ds fy, lk‘k; lgk;rk dhA ;kph Ø- 1 ij yksi vFkok dk;Z vkjksfir fd;k tkuk ;k rks izR;FkhZ dh dYiuk gS vFkok jktuhfrd Qk;nk izkIr djus dk mik; gSA ¿ iSjk 13 ¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 109 rFkk 325 && eq[; ea=h }kjk ukjs yxkus okyksa dks gVkus dk iqfyl dks funs‘k && mlds }kjk /kkjk 325 ds v/khu vijk/k ds nq"izsj.k ;k mdlkus dh dksfV dk ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 15 ¼6½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 203 && Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 325 ds v/khu vijk/k && ihVus esa vfHk;qDr dks fofufnZ"V Hkwfedk vkjksfir ugha && ,sls vfHk;qDr ds fo:) dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 16 ¼7½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 204 && naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 325 ds v/khu vijk/k && tk¡p ds izØe ij izFken`"V~;k ekeyk fl) && vfHk;qDr ds fo:) dk;Zokgh dh tkuk pkfg,A vfHkys[k ij lkexzh gS ftlesa izFken`"V~;k LFkkfir gksrk gS fd izR;FkhZ dks ;kph Ø- 3 us pk¡Vk ekjk Fkk] ifj.kker% izR;FkhZ ds ck,¡ dku dk inkZ QV x;k rFkk jDr cgus yxkA ;g LFkkfir fof/k gS fd vafre lquokbZ ds izØe ij lkekU;r% ikyu fd;k tkus okyk lcwr dk ekud] vfHk;qDr ds fo:) nkafMd ekeyk jftLVj djus ds izØe ij ykxw ugha fd;k tkrkA tgk¡ rd ;kph Ø- 3 ds fo:) ekeyk jftLVj djus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij izFken`"V~;k lkexzh gksus ds dkj.k naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 325 ds v/khu vijk/k dk nkafMd ekeyk jftLVj djus dk laca/k gS] vkf{kIr vkns‘k ‘kSfFkY;xzLr ugha gS] vr% bl U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi vko‘;d ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 17
1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 28.12.1999 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 7975/99 directing that the complaint med by the respondent be registered for offence under sections 109 and 325, IPC against the petitioner No. 1, and under section 325 read with section 34, IPC against the petitioners No.2 and 3.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are: The respondent/complainant Arvind Singh Bhadoriya is alleged to be a social worker and resides in the office of Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad, Immami Gate, Bhopal. It is alleged that on 3.4.1999 at about 11.30 a.m., a function to celebrate 150 years of journalism in Madhya Pradesh was being organized at Sanskriti Bhawan, Bhopal which was to he inaugurated by the Chief Minister Digvijay Singh, the petitioner No. 1. When the Chief Minister, the petitioner No. 1, rose to address the gathering, the activists of Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad under the leadership of respondent Arvind Singh Bhadoriya, displaying black flags and banners, started shouting and raised slogans against the Madhya Pradesh Vishwa Vidhyalaya (Amendment) Act. It is further alleged by the respondent/complainant that the Chief Minister, the petitioner No.1, got annoyed by the above obstruction by the said activists led by the respondent. The petitioner No. 1 directed the police authorities verbally as well as by gestures to turn out the respondent. The petitioners No.2 and 3 who are Dy. S.P. and Town Inspector of Police Station Tatya Tope Nagar, Bhopal respectively, were also present on the spot for maintaining public security. On the instigation of the Chief Minister, the petitioner No.1, the police force under the leadership of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 caught hold of the respondent and started beating him mercilessly. The respondent was taken out of the Bhavan where he was again beaten by the petitioners No.2 and 3. During the beating he was slapped by the petitioner No. 3 as a result of which his ear-drum was damaged and started bleeding. The complainant/respondent was taken to Police Station, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal. He was, however, later released.
3. The respondent/complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners in the Court of learned CJM, Bhopal. The learned CJM held an enquiry under section 200 and 202 of CrPC and by order dated 28.12.1999 registered criminal case No. 7975/99 for offences under sections 109 and 325, IPC against the petitioner No.1, and under section 325 read with section 34, IPC against the petitioners No.2 and 3. Being aggrieved with the above said order dated 28.12.1999, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this revision petition on the ground that it has been filed by the Advocate General of the State. He has contended in the above reference that under the Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the prosecutions are deemed to have been initiated by the State. The Advocate General represents the State and therefore the Advocate General is not competent to file this criminal revision. The learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that the authorisation to the Advocate General or to his colleagues to file the criminal revision against the impugned order is defective as directions to file the criminal revision should have been given by the Governor or if not by the Governor then by an order in the name of the Governor. Since the letter does not mention that the concerned Additional Secretary of the Government has been authorised to sign the letter on behalf of the Governor, such authorisation is not sustainable in law.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petition has not been filed by the State. He has, further, contended that this petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
