Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Akhilesh Kumar Jha v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1084 of 2010 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 2.3.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior in
Criminal Case No.210/2001;Decided on 24.9.2015.
-- jurisdiction under section 482 is wide enough to secure ends of justice -- objection rejected.
Held : Section 482 CrPC confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused. Thus, the preliminary objection stands overruled. (2004)7 SCC 338 and (2012)9 SCC 460 followed.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.190, 200 and 197 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302, 147, 148 and 149 --FIR lodged against complainant -- complaint made against public servant i.e. gazetted police officer by complainant -- whether in absence of permission of competent authority -- cognizance can be taken -- allegations made against petitioner -- related to his official duties -- without sanction of competent authority under section 197 -- cognizance cannot be taken -- order whereby cognizance taken and complaint proceedings set aside.
Held : The Court below was not justified in entertaining the complaint without there being a sanction order.
As per the averments of complaint, it is clear that the allegations against the petitioner are arising out of his official duties. In the present case, the respondent No.2 has not filed any reply. The petitioner has shown to this Court’s satisfaction that the allegations mentioned in the complaint are arising out of and connected with his official duties. Thus, he is entitled to enjoy protective umbrella of section 197, CrPC.
[Para 13
Thus, in my view, the Court below has erred in taking cognizance without there being any sanction under section 197, CrPC. (2009)6 SCC 372, (2013)10 SCC 705, (1995)1 SCC 684, (2012)3 SCC 64, (2012)6 SCC 228, AI/R 1967 SC 776, (2006)1 SCC (Cr.) 432 and AIR 1956 SC 44 followed. (2014)1 SCC (Cr.) 721 referred to.
[Para 14
The Court below has not applied its mind as to why protection under section 197, CrPC, is not applicable to the present petitioner. Apart from this, it is noteworthy that the alleged incident had taken place on 28.11.1996 whereas complaint was filed on 12.5.1997. This also shows that the complaint proceeding is instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to personal grudge. (1992)1 Supp. SCC 335 followed.
[Para 15
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr && nkafMd izdj.k esa fy, x, laKku ds fo"k; esa vkns'k &&,sls vkns'k ds fo#) ;kfpdk pykus ;ksX; u gksus dh vkifÙk && D;ksafd iqujh{k.k dk mipkj miyH; && U;k; ds mn~ns'; dks lqjf{kr j[kus ds fy, /kkjk 482 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk dkQh O;kid gS && vkifÙk [kkfjt dh xbZA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 482 U;k;ky; dks U;k; djus vkSj U;k; iz.kkyh dk nq#i;ksx vuqKkr u djus ds fy, i;kZIr 'kfDr iznku djrh gSA bl izdkj izkjafHkd vkifÙk vLohÑr dh tkrh gSA ¼2004½7 ,l lh lh 338 rFkk ¼2012½9,l lh lh 460 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9 ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 190] 200 rFkk 197 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302] 147] 148 rFkk 149 && ifjoknh ds fo#) izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky && ifjoknh }kjk yksd lsod vFkkZr~ jktif=r iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds fo#) ifjokn fd;k x;k && D;k l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh vuqKk ds vHkko esa && laKku fy;k tk ldrk gS && ;kph ds fo#) fd, x, vfHkdFku && mlds inh; drZO;ksa ls lacaf/kr && /kkjk 197 ds v/khu l{ke izkfèkdkjh dh eatwjh ds fcuk && laKku ugha fy;k tk ldrk && laKku fy, tkus dk vkns'k vkSj nkafMd dk;Zokfg;k¡ vikLr dh xb±A vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fupys U;k;ky; dks eatwjh vkns'k gksus ds fcuk ifjokn xzg.k djuk U;k;kuqer ugha FkkA ifjokn ds vfHkdFkuksa ds vuqlkj] ;g Li"V gS fd ;kph ds fo#) vfHkdFku mlds inh; drZO;ksa ls mn~Hkqr gSaA bl izdj.k esa] izR;FkhZ Ø-2 us dksbZ tokc izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA ;kph us bl U;k;ky; dh larqf"V ds fy, n'kkZ;k gS fd ifjokn esa mfYyf[kr vfHkdFku mlds inh; drZO;ksa ls mn~Hkwr vkSj lac/k gSaA bl izdkj] og naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 197 ds laj{kh N= dk gdnkj gSA bl izdkj esjh jk; esa] naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 197 ds v/khu dksbZ eatwjh u gksus ls fupys U;k;ky; us laKku ysus esa =qfV dh gSA ¼2009½6 ,l lh lh 372] ¼2013½10 ,l lh lh 705] ¼1995½1 ,l lh lh 684] ¼2012½3 ,l lh lh 64] ¼2012½6 ,l lh lh 228] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 776] ¼2006½1 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 432 rFkk , vkb vkj 1956 ,l lh 44 vuqlfjrA ¼2014½1 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 721 fufnZ"VA fupys U;k;ky; us vius euksfu;ksx dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k gS fd ;kph dks naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 197 ds v/khu laj{k.k D;ksa ykxw ugha gksrk gSA blds vfrfjDr] ;g /;ku nsus ;ksX; gS fd rFkkdfFkr ?kVuk 28-11-1996 dks gqbZ Fkh] tcfd ifjokn 12-5-1997 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ;g Hkh nf'kZr gS fd ifjokn dk;Zokgh vfHk;qDr ls izfr'kks/k ysus ds vfHkizk; ls vkSj mls ijs'kku djus ds fy, O;fDrxr bZ";kZ ls lafLFkr dh xbZ gSA ¼1992½1 lIyh-,l lh lh 335 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15
1. The petitioner, a gazetted police officer, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to assail the order dated 2.3.2001, passed in complaint proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhitarwar (District Gwalior).
2. It is stated by the petitioner that on 21.10.1995 one Munshiram was murdered. The allegation of said murder was made against respondent No.2 herein. The FIR for the offences under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC was registered against the respondent No.2 in Police Station Belgada. The father of deceased Munshiram filed a petition before the High Court contending that his son is murdered by son of an influential politician. Hence, the police is not taking any action against the accused. The High Court directed the Superintendent of Police (SP) to look into the matter. It is also stated in the petition that even in the bail application preferred by respondent No.2, this Court directed for conducting proper investigation. The petitioner contends that at relevant time, the petitioner was working as City Superintendent and did not have any connection with the said crime registered at Police Station Belgada.
3. It is urged that Shri Ram Niwas was the Superintendent of Police (SP) at the relevant time. As per High Court’s direction, the SP was directed to investigate/look into the progress of Crime No.75/95. The petitioner stated that initially the respondent No.2 was interrogated by the said SP. A request was made before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra for handing over the respondent No.2 for investigation to police authorities. In turn, the said Sessions Judge directed that the respondent No.2 herein be handed over for investigation to police authorities. Shri Ram Niwas (the then SP) started investigation. During investigation, respondent No.2 informed him that the axe by which he killed Munshiram is kept in his village Belgada. He agreed to provide the said axe to police authorities. The said statement of respondent No.2 was recorded by SP in presence of the witnesses. In section 27 Memorandum, along with respondent No.2, other witnesses put their signatures. It was also signed by the then SP.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Shri Ram Niwas directed the petitioner to take respondent No.2 to Belgada and recover the said axe. In obedience of the order of superior officer, the petitioner took with him the respondent No.2 and went to Belgada, which is about 60 Kms. away from Dabra. At Belgada the axe was recovered by respondent No.2 in presence of witnesses. A seizure memo was prepared. The petitioner after undertaking aforesaid exercise, brought the respondent No.2 back from Belgada to Dabra. It is urged that at that time the road between Dabra and Belgada was in a very bad condition, therefore, petitioner could reach Dabra at around 7:00 p.m. He took respondent No.2 to the residence of the then Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra. He produced him before the said judicial officer. At that time, counsel of respondent No.2 was also present before said judicial authority. The respondent No.2’s counsel did not make any complaint/objection about anything before the Additional Sessions Judge.
5. Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 was annoyed with the petitioner because he did not succumb to his pressure nor agreed to his request for not taking any action against him and, hence, he, as an after thought, filed the instant complaint on 12.5.1997. In the said complaint, certain allegations were made against him. The Court below took cognizance of said complaint on 2.3.2001 and summoned the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced three fold submissions. Firstly, it is urged that the date of incident is 28.11.1996 whereas complaint was filed on 12.5.1997. The allegations are based on sections 294 and 323 IPC. The limitation as per section 468 CrPC is one year. However, the c
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
