IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Parimal Singh Gurjar v. State of M. P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 31252 of 2024 (G); Decided on 9.5.2025
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 190, 193 and 319 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 307 and 294 -- jurisdiction -- attempt to murder -- two accused not charge-sheeted by police -- private complaint for taking cognizance against them -- rejected by Sessions Court on ground that similar application already dismissed by committal Court -- in fact, committal Court rejected aforesaid application on ground of jurisdiction, not on merits -- Sessions Court committed material illegality in not taking cognizance. (2016) 6 SCC 680 followed. [Paras 13 & 14]
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 307 -- attempt to murder -- plea of alibi has to be proved by leading cogent evidence -- specific allegations of firing shots causing injuries to applicants -- medical prescriptions and CCTV footage relied on by police to hold absence of accused on spot not sufficient. SLA (Cr.) No. 10484 of 2022 decided on 7.11.2022, SLP (Cr.) Diary No. 48079 of 2024 decided on 16.12.2024 and SLP (Cr.) No. 1891 of 2024 decided on 6.5.2025 followed. Cr. R. No. 2319 of 2022 decided on 3.8.2022 and M. Cr. C. No. 25903 of 2024 decided on 30.7.2024 relied on. [Paras 9 & 10]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 190] 193 rFkk 319 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 307 rFkk 294 & vfèkdkfjrk & gR;k dk ç;kl & iqfyl }kjk n¨ vfÒ;qä¨a d¢ fo#) vkj¨ii= ugÈ çLrqr fd;k x;k & mud¢ fo#) laKku djus d¢ fy, O;fäxr ifjokn & ls'ku U;k;ky; }kjk bl vkèkkj ij ukeatwj fd lqiqnZxh U;k;ky; }kjk igys gh ,slk vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS & rF;r% lqiqnZxh U;k;ky; us iwo¨Zä vkosnu vfèkdkfjrk d¢ vkèkkj ij ukeatwj fd;k Fkk] xq.kkxq.k ij ugÈ & ls'ku U;k;ky; us laKku ugÈ dj ds rkfRod voSèkrk dhA ¼2016½ 6 ,llhlh 680 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 307 & gR;k dk ç;kl & vU;= g¨us dk vfÒokd~ rdZiw.kZ lk{; is'k dj lkfcr fd;k tkuk g¨rk gS & x¨yh pykdj vkosndx.k d¨ {kfr;k¡ dkfjr djus d¢ fofufnZ"V vfÒdFku & ÄVukLFky ij vfÒ;qäx.k dh vuqifLFkfr ekuus d¢ fy, iqfyl }kjk voyafcr fpfdRlh; ipkZ rFkk lhlhVhoh QqVst i;kZIr ugÈA fo'ks"k btktr vihy ¼nkafMd½ Øekad 10484 lu~ 2022 fu.kÊr fnukad 7-11-2022] fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk ¼nkafMd½ Mk;jh Øekad 48079 lu~ 2024 fu.kÊr fnukad 16-12-2024 rFkk fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk ¼nkafMd½ Øekad 1891 lu~ 2024 fu.kÊr fnukad 6-5-2025 vuqlfjrA nkafMd iqujh{k.k Øekad 2319 lu~ 2022 fu.kÊr fnukad 3-8-2022 rFkk çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Øekad 25903 lu~ 2024 fu.kÊr fnukad 30-7-2024 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 10½
ORDER
1. This application, under section 482 of the CrPC, has been filed against the order dated 24.6.2024 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in S.T. No. 315 of 2023, by which application filed by the applicant under section 193 of the Cr.P.C has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that complainant Ramvilas Gurjar lodged an FIR that on 1.6.2021, at about 4:00 a.m., he was going from Morena to Vindwa on his Motorcycle along with applicant Parmal. Dharmendra Singh Kansana was also going by his separate motorcycle. As soon as they reached in front of farmhouse of Hakim Baghel situated at Piparsa Station Road, they saw that Badshah, Rakesh, Rahul, and Lalla alias Janavar were standing along with Lathi in their hand. On account of old enmity, all the four persons started abusing them with filthy language in the name of mother and sister. When applicant objected to it, then Badshah fired a gunshot which hit on the back side of waist of Parmal/applicant, as a result he fell down. Rakesh fired a gunshot which also caused injury on the back side of the waist of Dharmendra and he also fell down. All the four persons ran away after leaving their Scooty on the spot. Registration No. of scooty is MP06-S9988. Information of the incident was given by complainant Ramvilas to Mohan Singh Gurjar on phone. Thereafter Mohan Singh Gurjar came on the spot and thereafter both the injured persons, i.e., applicant Parmal and Dharmendra, were taken to District Hospital, Morena on Motorcycles, from where both of them were referred to Gwalior and after admitting them in Apollo Hospital, Gwalior, complainant Ramvilas lodged the FIR.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that police, after concluding the investigation, filed charge sheet against Rahul Dandotiya and Lalla alias Janavar Dandotiya and did not file charge sheet against Badshah Dandotiya and Rakesh Dandotiya on the ground that Badshah and Rakesh had given a complaint to senior officers alleging their false implication. Rakesh had also produced the documents pertaining to medical ailment on account of COVID19 pandemic. The statements of various persons were also recorded and CCTV footage was also collected and accordingly charge sheet was not filed against Badshah Dandotiya and Rakesh Dandotiya/respondent No.s 2 and 3.
It is submitted by counsel for applicant that an application filed by the applicant under section 190 of CrPC for taking cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was rejected by the committal Court on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to try the offence under section 307 of IPC. Thereafter, applicant filed an application under section 193 of Cr.P.C for taking cognizance against Badshah Dandotiya and Rakesh Dandotiya, which was rejected by order dated 24.6.2024.
It is submitted by counsel for applicant that whether Badshah Dandotiya and Rakesh Dandotiya were present or not on the spot is a question which is to be decided by the trial court after considering the evidence led by accused persons. It is further submitted that defence of plea of alibi is to be proved by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, FIR specifically contains allegation that it was Badshah Dandotiya and Rakesh Dandotiya who fired two different shots causing injuries to Parimal and Dharmendra, and under these circumstances, the police committed a material illegality by relying upon the medical prescription of Rakesh Dandotiya to hold that he was medically sick on the date of incident.
It is further submitted that so far as CCTV footage of house of neighbour is concerned, the same cannot be said to be conclusive evidence in favour of accused persons because the time and date in the DVR of CCTV system is fed manually and the scene can be recreated by feeding incorrect date and time.
4. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is submitted that earlier applicant had filed an application under section 190 of CrPC whi
Cognizance of offence – Where magistrate had played active role by considering as to whether cognizance against persons who have not been charge-sheeted by police can be taken or not, then Sessions C....
The Magistrate's discretion to take cognizance is not bound by the investigating officer's opinion, and the plea of alibi must be proven at trial, not at the cognizance stage.
The court ruled that strong evidence is required to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for consistency in the complainant's statements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.