IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushil Kumar Palo, J.
Renu Sharma (Smt.) v. Atul Bhargav
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.18509 of 2016 (J);
Decided on 7.9.2017
naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 311 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 427] 457] 323] 506 Hkkx 1 lgifBr /kkjk 34 & izR;FkhZ@ifjoknh }kjk ;kph@vfHk;qDr rFkk mldh ek¡ ds fo#) vkijkf/kd ifjokn ekeyk Qkby fd;k & ifjoknh rFkk mlds lk{khx.k ds dFku dh lR;rk lR;kfir dh tkuk gS & ekeys ds U;k;laxr fofu'p; ds fy, & lk{khx.k rFkk ifjoknh ds dkWy fMVsYl cqyk, tk ldrs gSaA , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 455 vuqlfjrA 1980 ,e ih ,y ts 300 rFkk 2007 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 84 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12] 14 ,oa 15½
1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed to assail the order dated 15.9.2016 passed by the First ASJ, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No.2500078/2016, wherein the order dated 3.8.2016 passed by JMFC, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.1206/2010 has been affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case requisite for disposal of this petition are that, the petitioner is facing trial under sections 427, 457, 323, 506-I read with section 34 of IPC. In the complaint case, after the examination of the accused, petitioner filed an application for examining herself and calling Subodh Malviya, Head Constable incharge of the Cyber Cell in the office of Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara to bring with him the details of Atul Bhargava Mobile No.9826147899 to Mobile No.9425306129, call details of Prashant Mobile No.942469919 and Shiv Saxena Mobile No.9425146706. The said application was disallowed by learned JMFC on 3.8.2016. The same was agitated in Criminal Revision No.2500078/2016 was filed before First ASJ, Chhindwara, wherein the same has been disallowed on 15.9.2016.
3. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petition are that, criminal complaint case has been filed by Atul Bhargava against the petitioner and her mother Kusum Sharma on the ground that there was an agreement between the parties for running the Abhimanyu Hotel and 12 Cottages. The complainant was living in a room in that hotel. The accused No.1 is the wife of the Director of the Abhimanyu Hotel Ltd. and mother of the accused No.1. There was a dispute between them. After the order from the Court, the complainant was running the business of the hotel since 18.6.2007. When the complainant and his wife were sleeping in their room, on 14.2.2010 around the midnight, suddenly the accused persons entered into the room with four other members, who said to be police personnel wearing Khaki dress. The accused persons abusing the complainant by obscene words, damage the furnitures and caused loss about Rs.15,000/-. They also threatened the complainant to vacate the hotel or else they will be dealt with and threatened of his life. At that time, the accused persons assaulted the complainant. The complainant rang up to Prashant and Shiv Saxena and called them. In presence of Prashant and Shiv Saxena also the accused persons uttered obscene words and threatened him of his life. With the intervention of Shiv Saxena and Prashant, the complainant and his wife could be saved. The accused persons also threatened complainant's wife of her life. On lodging complaint at police station, Kundipura, no report was lodged, therefore, a private complaint has been filed.
4. The petitioner/accused claimed that during the examination of the accused, question No.20 was asked about calling Prashant and Shiv Saxena by the complainant. In her plea in the examination of the accused, the petitioner has stated that her husband is the owner of the Abhimanyu Hotel Ltd. which is run by her. The complainant and other members entered into the hotel and assaulted the petitioner and her mother-in-law and also damaged the properties of the hotel. A civil case is also pending with regard to the dispute. Therefore, false complaint has been initiated by Atul Bhargava.
5. It is further claimed that in this background, this application for calling the call details was felt necessary and to prove the veracity of the statement of the complainant, the same is required.
6. It would be appropriate to note that the petitioner's application for examining the petitioner has been allowed by the learned JMFC vide order dated 3.8.2016 under section 315 of CrPC Prayer for calling Subodh Malviya, Head Constable with the call details of Atul, Prashant and Shiv Saxena in the intervening night on 14.2.2010 and 15.2.2010 has been prayed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the contentions and submits that, earlier Atul, Prashant and Shiv Saxena has been examined by the complainant and no such questions
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.
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.