Back
1994 JLJ 36
K.M. Pandey, J.
Madhav Rao Scindia (Shri) v. State of M.P. and others
Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1862 of 1985; against the order of Shri Chandrika Prasad,
Special Judge Gwalior, passed in Cr. Case No. 145 of 1985; Decided on 26.10.1993.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 204 -- offence of dacoity, dispossession of immovable property etc. -- no injury of any kind sustained by any inmates -complainant not establishing any title or possession over the disputed properties -- title of accused prima facie apparent -- case should not be registered summoning accused persons when there is only civil dispute amongst family members.
It is said that accused persons 4 to 16 arrived armed with different weapons and drove away the employees of the complainant and forcibly took possession of the premises (Hiranvan Kothi). There appears to be some force in the contention of Shri Madhav Raio Scindia that the entire incident has been concocted because if such a large number of persons had dispossessed the complainant and thrown them out of the premises then it was not possible that no injury would have been sustained by the inmates of the house when definitely force was used to dislodge them. Nobody on the side of the complainant (Smt. Chitralekha) was injured and nobody had even a scratch on his body which creates doubt in the prosecution case itself. There is yet another important fact to be noticed. The complainant herself does not say that Shri Madhav Rao Scindia had himself come on the spot or that he was present and participated in the commission of crime. His involvement, therefore, appears to be on reasons other than merit. Shri Madhav Rao Scindia, by operation of law, became the head of the family. Rajmata was just a female member of Joint Hindu Family. The premises, in question, namely, Hiranvan Kothi has also never been partitioned and consequently it continues to remain as a Joint Hindu Family property of which Shri Madhav Rao Scindia was the head and being head of the family and owner of the premises he could not have committed robbery or theft in respect of his own property which was situated therein. [Paras 18 & 19
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 321 -- withdrawal from prosecution under -it should be in the interest of administration of justice which is the paramount consideration. AIR 1977 SC 2265 and AIR 1977 SC 903 followed. [Para 42
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 321 -- consent to withdrawal from prosecution -- is a judicial function. [Para 43
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 321 -- State legislation already in force -Parliament not competent to make law on the subject -- no notification issued by Central Government -- consent to withdraw the case under not without jurisdication.
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 29 -- subsequent amendment in enactment-cannot affect pending criminal case. [Para 48
(7) Criminal P.C., 1973 –S.202 -- M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 -- Ss. 2 (f), 6(3) and 8(2) -- substantive offences, punishments and procedure duly prescribed under the Adhiniyam in various provisions -- S. 202 of the Code is not attracted. [Para 50
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 397] 429] 395] 452] 147] 148] 149 rFkk 201 & ds v/khu çkbosV ifjokn & ifjoknh dh vksj dk dksbZ Hkh {kfrxzLr ugha & ifjoknh vfHkdfFkr laifÙk dh gdnkj fl) ugha ftlesa ls mls vfHkdfFkr :i ls csdCtk fd;k x;k & vfHk;qDr }kjk laifÙk ij çFke n`"V;k gd rFkk dCtk fl) fd;k x;k & ekeyk jftLVj ugha djuk pkfg, Fkk tc fd ;g çdVr% dqVqac dk flfoy fookn gSA
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 204 & MdSrh] LFkkoj laifÙk ls csdCtk fd;k tkuk vkfn dk vijk/k & fdlh fuoklh dks fdlh çdkj dh {kfr ugha igq¡ph & ifjoknh }kjk fooknxzLr laifÙk ij dksbZ gd vFkok dCtk LFkkfir ugha & vfHk;qDr dk gd çFke n`"V;k Li"V & vfHk;qDr O;fDr;kas dks leu Hkst dj ekeyk jftLVj ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, tc fd og dsoy dqVqac ds lnL;ksa ds chp flfoy fookn gSA
;g dgk x;k gS fd 4 ls 16 vfHk;qDr O;fDr fofHkUu vk;q/kksa ls ySl gksdj igq¡ps vkSj ifjoknh ds deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkxk fn;k rFkk ifjlj ¼fgju ou dksBh½ dk dCtk cyiwoZd ys fy;kA Jh ek/kojko flaf/k;k ds bl çfrfojks/k esa dqN cy fn[krk gS fd laiw.kZ ?kVuk x<+h xbZ gS D;ksafd ;fn brus cgqla[;d O;fDr;ksa us ifjoknh dks csdCtk fd;k gksrk vkSj mudks ifjlj ls ckgj /kdsyk gksrk rc ;g laHko ugha Fkk fd edku ds fuokfl;ksa dks dksbZ {kfr u igq¡ph gksrh tc fd mudks gVkus ds fy, fuf‘pr :i ls cy ç;ksx fd;k x;k FkkA ifjoknh ¼Jherh fp=ys[kk½ dh vksj dk dksbZ O;fDr {kfrxzLr ugha gqvk Fkk rFkk fdlh O;fDr ds dksbZ [kjksap rd ugha vkbZ ftlls vfHk;kstu ekeyk Lo;a lansgkLin gks tkrk gSA blds vfrfjDr ,d vkSj rF; /;ku nsus ;ksX; gSA ifjoknh ;g ugha dgrh gS fd Jh ek/kojko flaf/k;k Lo;a LFky ij vk, Fks vFkok ;g fd os mifLFkr Fks vkSj mUgksaus vijk/k djus esa Hkkx fy;kA vr,o] mudk vkfyIr fd;k tkuk xq.k ls fHkUu dkj.kksa ij ls çrhr gksrk gSA
Jh ek/kojko flaf/k;k] fof/k dh fØ;k ls dqVqac ds eqf[k;k cu x,A jktekrk fganw vfoHkDr dqVqac dh ukjh lnL; ek= FkhaA ç‘ui= ifjlj] uker% fgjuou dksBh dk foHkktu dHkh ugha gqvk vkSj ifj.kker% og vfoHkDr fganw dqVqac dh laifÙk ds :I esa cuh gqbZ gS ftlds eqf[k;k ek/kojko flaf/k;k Fks vkSj dqVqac ds eqf[k;k rFkk ifjlj ds Lokeh gksus ds dkj.k os Lo;a viuh laifÙk dh tks mlds Hkhrj vofLFkr Fkh] ywV vFkok pksjh ugha dj ldrs FksA ¿iSjk 18 ,oa 19
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 321 & ds v/khu vfHk;kstu okil ysuk & U;k; ç‘kklu ds fgr esa gksuk pkfg, tks loksZifj fopkj gSA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 2265 rFkk , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 903 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 42
¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 321 & vfHk;kstu okil ysus dh lgefr & U;kf;d ÑR; gSA ¿iSjk 43
¼5½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 321 & jkT; fo/kku igys gh çHkko‘khy & laln ml fo"k; ij fof/k cukus ds fy, l{ke ugha & dsanzh; ljdkj }kjk dksbZ vf/klwpuk tkjh ugha dh xbZ & ekeyk okil ysus dh lgefr vf/kdkfjrk jfgr ughaA ¿iSjk 45
¼6½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 29 & vf/kfu;fefr esa i‘pkrorhZ la‘kks/ku & yafcr nkafMd ekeys dks çHkkfor ugha dj ldrkA ¿iSjk 48
¼7½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 202 & e-ç- MdSrh vkSj O;oigj.k çHkkfor {ks= vf/kfu;e] 1981 & /kkjk 2 ¼p½] 6 ¼3½ rFkk 8 ¼2½ & vf/kfu;e ds fofHkUu mica/kksa ds v/khu eq[; vijk/k] naM rFkk çfØ;k lE;d~:is.k fofgr & lafgrk dh /kkjk 202 vkdf"kZr ugha gksrhA ¿iSjk 50
K.M. Pandey, J. -- 1. This order shall govern all the four cases mentioned above. The undisputed facts of the case are that all the aforesaid four cases have arisen as a result of a criminal complaint filed by one Smt. Chitralekha, daughter of Sardar Angre, on 11.10.83 in the Court of Special Judge, Gwalior against Madav Rao Scindia and 14 others. The learned Judge, after recording the statements of five witnesses passed an order for issuance of bailable warrants for Rs. 500/- against each of the accused persons, on 20.11.85. Aggrieved by the , said order the accused persons filed a Criminal Revision No. 185/85 before this Court. An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been filed by the petitioner namely Madhav Rao Scindia for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 145/85, pending in the Court of Shri Chandrika Prasad, Special Judge, Gwalior. Later on, in S.T. No. 80 of 1986 certain properties which were alleged to be properties of theft, in connection with Crime No. 135/82 of Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior were directed to be handedover to Scindia Museum vide order dated 24.1.91 against which a Criminal Appeal (M.M.) No. 187/92, as mentioned above, has been filed by the appellant Shrimant Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia (hereinafter to be called as Rajmata). The case went on, but lateron, an application for withdrawal of the case (S.T. No. 86/86) was moved by the State Government and the learned Judge passed an order granting permission for withdrawal from the prosecution. This order dated 24.1.91 has been challenged by the petitioner Mahendra Pratap Singh and is the subject-matter of decision in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1991.
2. For a proper understanding of the case it would be proper to give the history of the criminal complaint filed by Smt. Chitralekha which has given rise to the present four petitions.
3. One Smt. Chitralekha, daughter of Sardar Angre filed a criminal complaint under sections 395, 397,429,452147, 148, 149,201 and 120-B of the I.P.C. and under sections 11 and 13 of the Dakaity Aur Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 alleging that there is a bunglow known as Hiranvan Kothi within the compound of Jai Vilas Palace, Gwalior. It may be pointed out here that accused No.1 Madhav Rao Scindia is the present Maharaja of Gwalior. He is the only son of the late Shrimant Jiwaji Rao Scindia who was the Maharaja of Gwalior. Smt. Chitralekha, the complainant alleged that her father Sardar Angre is the private secretary of Rajrnata who is the mother of accused No.1, Mahav Rao Scindia. It is further alleged that in the year 1973 Rajmata gave the said Hiranvan Kothi to her father Sardar Angre in the knowledge of Madhav Rao Scindia, for residence. Since then her father Sardar Angre and his family members have been residing in the said Kothi. The said building was handedover to Sardar Angre orally by Rajmata. Not only this, but in order to regularize the said oral transfer a rent note was executed on 4.9.79 in he name of the complainant.
4. The accused persons did not like this transfer of possession of the said building to the complainant and her father. The complainant, her father and other family members were residing in the said Kothi on the date of occurrence.
5. On 13.8.83 in between 5-6 P.M. the accused persons No.2 to 16 alongwith others in order to forcibly take possession of the said Hiranvan Kothi forced their entry in the said Kothi and drove the inmates out of the premises at the point of gun. The complainant had kept 5 dogs also for the safety of the building. On her return back the complainant found that only two dogs were present. The rest three had been killed or takenaway. It was further alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 (Madhav Rao Scindia) wanted to take forcible possession of the Kothi. Besides, the articles of the complainant, several precious articles of the museum were also kept therein which the accused No.1 wanted to take in his pos
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
