Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
N.K. Gupta, J.
Rajendra Bharti v. Shri Narottam Mishra and others
Criminal Revision No.856 of 2013 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 5.9.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, Datia in Appeal No. 33 of 2013; Decided on 17.3.2016.
(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.200, 202, 340(1)(2) and 482 -- Penal Code, 1860-- Ss.188, 191, 192, 193, 420, 467 and 468 -- maintainability of -- revision against order of appeal -- cannot be discarded only on ground that it was not maintainable -- merits of case may be examined having power under section 482 of CrPC -- grievance of respondents No.1 and 2 may be considered while considering question that whether complaint filed in expedient in interest of justice -- complaint could not be discarded only on ground that applicant was not aggrieved by filing such document -- both Courts below rightly entertained complaint as well as appeal.
Held : In the light of aforesaid judgments, revision filed by the applicant cannot be discarded only on the ground that it was not maintainable. Merits of the case may be examined by this Court having power under section 482 of CrPC.
The omplaint under section 340 of CrPC filed by the applicant could not be discarded only on the ground that he was not personally aggrieved by filing of the alleged false or fabricated document. However, the grievance of the respondents No.1 and 2 may be considered while considering the question that whether the complaint was filed in expedient in the interest of justice, but the complaint could not be discarded only on the ground that the applicant was not aggrieved by filing of such documents. Both the Courts below have rightly entertained the complaint as well as the appeal filed by the applicant. AIR 1998 SC 128 and (1997)4 SCC 241 referred to. AIR 1984 SC 718 followed.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.200, 202, 340(1)(2) and 341 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.188, 191, 192, 193, 420, 467 and 468 -- not established that vehicle was being plied for election campaign or taking voters to pooling booth -- District Election Officer rightly found that complaint made by applicant before Election Commission was not acceptable -- only to these counts -- it cannot be said that power of attorney given by respondent No.1 before trial Court was false or fabricated document -- JMFC, Datia rightly dismissed complaint under and appeal rightly dismissed by appellate Court -- no reason to interfere in order passed by Court below and to invoke power under -- petition under section 482 dismissed.
Held : It was not established that the vehicle was being plied for election campaign or taking the voters to the pooling booth. Hence, the District Election Officer has rightly found that the complaint made by the applicant before the Election Commission was not acceptable and, therefore, the same was dismissed. Only on these counts, it cannot be said that the power of attorney given by the respondent No.1 before the trial Court was a false or fabricated document. (1992)3 SCC 178 and (1978)1 SCC 18 referred to.
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.200, 202, 340(1)(2) and 482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.188, 191, 192, 193, 420, 467 and 468 -- applicant failed to prove that respondents No.1 and 2 forged power of attorney or affidavit or gave a false evidence before JMFC -- he also failed to prove that respondent No.1 was not a registered owner of vehicle at time of execution of power of attorney -- both Courts below rightly dismissed complaint and appeal -- no reason to interfere -- petition dismissed.
Held : On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the applicant has failed to prove that the respondents No.1 and 2 have forged the power of attorney or affidavit or gave a false evidence before the JMFC, Datia to get the aforesaid vehicle in interim custody, whereas, the applicant has failed to prove that the respondent No.1 was not a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of execution of power of attorney. (2016)2 SCC 382, (2014)14 SCC 142 and (2015)3 SCC 679 referred to. (2009)4 SCC 168, 2002 SCC (Cri) 140, 1973 SCC (Cri) 828 and 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101 distinguished.
[Para 18
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 200] 202] 340¼1½¼2½ rFkk 482 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 188] 191] 192] 193] 420] 467 rFkk 468 && dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk && vihy ds vkns'k ds fo#} iqujh{k.k && dsoy bl vk/kkj ij R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ;g pykus ;ksX; ugha Fkk && ekeys ds xq.kkxq.k dk naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds vèkhu 'kfDr j[krs gq, ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gS && izR;FkhZx.k Ø-1 rFkk 2 dh f'kdk;r ij bl iz'u ij fopkj djrs le; fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS fd U;k;fgr esa izLrqr ifjokn lehphu gS ;k ugha && ifjokn dsoy bl vk/kkj ij R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk fd vkosnd ,slk nLrkost izLrqr djus ls O;fFkr ugha Fkk && fupys nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa us ifjokn ds lkFk&lkFk vihy Bhd&gh xzg.k dhA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoZdfFkr fu.kZ;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vkosnd }kjk izLrqr iqujh{k.k dsoy bl vk/kkj ij R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ;g pykus ;ksX; ugha FkkA ekeys ds xq.kkxq.k dk ijh{k.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu 'kfDr j[krs gq, fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkosnd }kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 340 ds v/khu izLrqr ifjokn dks dsoy bl vk/kkj ij R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd og vfHkdfFkr feF;k ;k dwVjfpr nLrkost dks izLrqr gksus ls O;fDrxr :i ls O;fFkr ugha FkkA fQj Hkh] izR;FkhZx.k Ø-1 rFkk 2 dh f'kdk;r ij bl iz'u ij fopkj djrs le; fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS fd U;k;fgr esa izLrqr ifjokn lehphu Fkk ;k ugha] ysfdu ifjokn dsoy bl vk/kkj ij R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd vkosnd ,sls nLrkost ds izLrqr gksus ls O;fFkr ugha FkkA fupys nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa us vkosnd }kjk izLrqr ifjokn ds lkFk&lkFk vihy Bhd&gh xzg.k dhA , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 128 rFkk ¼1997½ 4 ,l lh lh 241 fufnZ"VA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 718 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 7½ ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 200] 202] 340¼1½¼2½ rFkk 341 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 188] 191] 192] 193] 420] 467 rFkk 468 && fl} ugha fd fuokZpu vfHk;ku ;k ernkrkvksa dks ernku d{k rd ys tkus ds fy, okgu pyk;k tk jgk Fkk && ftyk fuokZpu vf/kdkjh us Bhd&gh ik;k fd vkosnd }kjk fuokZpu vk;ksx ds le{k fd;k ifjokn Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha Fkk && dsoy bu dkj.kksa ls& ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd izR;FkhZ Ø-1 }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k fn;k x;k eq[R;kjukek feF;k ;k dwVjfpr nLrkost Fkk && izFke oxZ U;kf;d eftLVsªV us mica/kksa ds v/khu ifjokn Bhd&gh [kkfjt fd;k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk vihy Bhd&gh [kkfjt dh && fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr vkns'k esa gLr{ksi ds fy, rFkk mica/kksa ds v/khu 'kfDr dk vkJ; ysus ds fy, dksbZ dkj.k ugha && /kkjk 482 ds v/khu ;kfpdk [kkfjtA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g fl} ugha fd;k x;k fd fuokZpu vfHk;ku ;k ernkrkvksa dks ernku d{k rd ys tkus ds fy, okgu pyk;k tk jgk FkkA blfy,] ftyk fuokZpu vf/kdkjh us Bhd&gh ik;k fd vkosnd us fuokZpu vk;ksx ds le{k fd;k x;k ifjokn Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha Fkk rFkk] blfy,] bls [kkfjt fd;k x;kA dsoy bu dkj.kksa ls ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd izR;FkhZ Ø-1 }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k fn;k x;k eq[R;kjukek feF;k ;k dwVjfpr nLrkost FkkA ¼1992½ 3 ,l lh lh 178 rFkk ¼1978½ 1 ,l lh lh 18 fufnZ"VA ¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 200] 202] 340¼1½¼2½ rFkk 482 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 188] 191] 192] 193] 420] 467 rFkk 468 && vkosnd ;g fl} djus esa vlQy jgk fd izR;FkhZx.k Ø-1 rFkk 2 us eq[R;kjukek ;k 'kiFk&i= dh dwVjpuk dh ;k izFke oxZ U;kf;d eftLVªsV ds le{k feF;k lk{; nh && og ;g Hkh fl} djus esa vlQy jgk fd izR;FkhZ Ø-1 eq[R;kjukek fu"iknu ds le; okgu dk jftLVªhd`r Lokeh ugha Fkk && fupys nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ifjokn rFkk vihy Bhd&gh [kkfjt dh && gLr{ksi ds fy, dksbZ dkj.k ugha && ;kfpdk [kkfjtA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr ppkZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdV gS fd vkosnd ;g fl} djus esa vlQy jgk fd izR;FkhZx.k Ø-1 rFkk 2 us eq[R;kjukek ;k 'kiFk&i= dh dwVjpuk dh ;k izFke oxZ eftLVªsV] nfr;k ds le{k iwoksZDr okgu vaarfje vfHkj{kk esa ysus ds fy, feF;k lk{; nh] tcfd] vkosnd ;g fl} djus esa vlQy jgk fd izR;FkhZ Ø-1 eq[R;kjukek fu"iknu ds le; okgu dk jftLVªhd`r Lokeh ugha FkkA ¼2016½ 2 ,l lh lh 382] ¼2014½ 14 ,l lh lh 142 rFkk ¼2015½ 3 ,l lh lh 679 fufnZ"VA ¼2009½ 4 ,l lh lh 168] 2002 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 140] 1973 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 828 rFkk 2005 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 1101 izHksfnrA
1. The applicant has filed a complaint under section 340 of CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia which was registered as MJC No.33/2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2013. Thereafter, appeal No.33/2013 filed by the applicant was also dismissed on 5.9.2013 by the Sessions Judge, Datia. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the present revision is filed.
2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant as well as the respondent No. 1 had contested legislative assembly election in the year 2008. The respondent No.1 had submitted a nomination form before the returning officer along with an affidavit that he did not own any motor vehicle. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 arranged for various vehicles during his election. One four wheeler bearing registration No. HR37/B-1282 was used in that election campaign by respondent No.1 upto 27.11.2008 which was of the respondent No.1 himself. That vehicle was seized by the officers of the Police Station Jigna, District Datia for offence under section 188 of IPC and various other offences and Crime No.86/2008 was registered. That vehicle was taken on interim custody by the respondent No.2 having a power of attorney executed by the respondent No.1 and vide order dated 1.12.2008, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia gave the vehicle on interim custody to the respondent No.2. Since, the respondent No.1 had given an affidavit along with nomination form that he did not have any motor vehicle, therefore, complaint was made before the Election Commission. Vide letter dated 13.4.2012 District Election Officer, Shivpuri intimated the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri to register a criminal case against the respondent No.1 relating to submission of false affidavit. Thereafter, on enquiry it was found that the vehicle bearing registration No. HR37/B-1282 was not of the respondent No.1 and it was made clear by the District Election Officer that affidavit submitted by the respondent No.1 along with nomination form was correct and therefore, it is self evident that the power of attorney issued by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 to get the aforesaid motor vehicle on interim custody was forged document and the respondent No.2 has also submitted affidavit before the JMFC, Datia to get the interim custody of the vehicle which was false and therefore, a complaint under section 340 of CrPC was filed by the applicant before the JMFC, Datia to get a relief for offence under sections 191, 192, 193, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.
3. After making a short enquiry, the JMFC, Datia vide order dated 29.7.2013 dismissed the complaint, whereas, appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
5. For disposal of the present revision only two questions are to be decided on merits. Firstly, whether the respondents No.1 and 2 have produced a fabricated or false document like power of attorney or affidavit in a judicial proceedings and secondly whether it was expedient in the interest of justice for the trial Court to lodge a criminal complaint against the respondents. The grievances of the applicant can be considered on aforesaid two questions. However, some points are also raised by learned senior Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 relating to maintainability of the case and right of the applicant to lodge a complaint under section 340 of CrPC. Learned senior Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 has invited attention of this Court to the provision of section 341(2) of CrPC that after filing of an appeal against the order under section 340 of CrPC, no revision lies. The provisions of section 341 of CrPC for ready reference is reproduced as under :
“Section 341. Appeal. -- (1) Any person on whose application any Court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court, ma
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
