Vishwaraj Singh (Thakur) vs Santram - 1996 Supreme(MP) 1183

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.C. Datt.
For the Respondents: S.L. Kochar, S.K. Tiwari and B.K. Khare.

Headnote:(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 245 (2) and 204 – process for trial under S. 420 IPC issued – accused may file application under S. 245 (2) claiming discharge.
       (2) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S. 420 – case unduly delayed in filing complaint – accused may pray for discharge under S. 245 (2) Cr.P.C.
        Short Note
       1. The revision petition and the documents filed alongwith the petition perused.
       2. Petitioner Thakur Vishwaraj Singh, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 22.11.1990, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Khairagarh Camp Kawardha, in Criminal Revision No. 98/89.
       3. Non – petitioner Santram and Ajuram had filed a criminal complaint against, the petitioner alleging commission of an offence under section 420 of the I.P.C. The Trial Court, on considering the allegations made in the complaint and the statements of the complainants and in view of the fact that the complaint was filed after more than 15 years of the alleged commission of the offence dismissed the complaint. The non – petitioner, being dissatisfied with the dismissal of their complaint, filed a revision petition before the Court of Sessions. The Revisional Court on re – appreciation of the entire available material found that there was sufficient material for the registration of the complaint and, therefore, passed the impugned order setting aside the order of the Trial Court and directing the trial Court to registering the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 420 of the I.P.C.
       4. Shri Datt the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court has erred in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. On the other hand, Shri Tiwari, the learned counsel for the non – petitioner submitted that the material available before the Trial Court was sufficient for making out a prima – facie case against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offence under section 420 of the I.P.C.
       5. On due consideration of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any such illegality or perversity which may necessitate interference by this Court in this revision petition.
       6. The petitioner, if advised, may appear before the Trial Court and submit an application under section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. for an order of discharge. The trial Court, however if such an application is filed by the petitioner, shall consider the same according to law and the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 1992 SC 2206. It goes without saying that the Trial Court while considering such application shall not be influenced by the observations made by the Court of Sessions in the order passed in the revision, filed by the non – petitioner, against the order of dismissal of the complaint.
       7. With the above direction, the revision petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.