IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR MCRC No. 46833 of 2024 (ISMILE SHAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated :18-12-2024 Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Bendel -

Advocate for applicant.

Shri C.K. Mishra - Govt. Advocate for respondent-State.

Shri Rahul Rawat - Advocate for Objector.

Heard on IA No.31905/2024, which is an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C./Section 339 of BNSS.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant contends that the Objector who is stranger to the litigation has no right to prefer any objection nor can move any application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C./Section 339 of BNSS. It is contended by the counsel that the case in question has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant and the proposed objector is not the complainant, and therefore, the application by the objector is not maintainable. It is further contended by the counsel that the objector is in the habit of blackmailing and lodging false cases which is evident from the reply filed by the applicant and in paragraph 4 of the same, the details of the cases have been given in order to demonstrate that the objector in past has lodged 6 cases against the different persons and the modus operandi of the objector is to pressurize the innocent persons and later on, enter into compromise with them. It is Signature Not Verified contended by the counsel that the application filed by the objector deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kapil Gupta vs. State. (Bail Application No.2813/2020). Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that an identical issue was dealt with by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.11714/2024 (Sonia Keshwani vs. The State of M.P. and Anr.).

Learned counsel for the Objector contends that the contention of the senior counsel for the applicant is misconceived. The present applicant is the person who is espousing the cause of complainant. The present applicant is habitual offender and the objector is one of the victim of the present applicant. Against the applicant with P.S. Seoni, a case under Section 294, 323, 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered vide FIR No.69/2020 and also Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 294, 323, 506 of IPC and and Sections 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered vide FIR No.243/2023. It is contended by the counsel that the the applicant had affair with 2 other girls who are of different religions, and therefore, on account of applicant's conduct, the communal harmony is at stake and accordingly, it is contended by the counsel that the objector has right to move Signature Not Verified application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C./Section 339 of BNSS. Learned counsel for the Objector while placing reliance on Section

2(y) of BNSS submits that the objector is an interested person and is entitled to maintain objection.

Learned counsel for the Objector has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amanullah and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2016 6 SCC 699).

Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is undisputed that the objector is not the complainant on the basis of whose complaint, the FIR against the present applicant has been registered. The Objector, in past had lodged 2 cases against the applicant vide Crime No.243/2023 as well as Crime No.69/2020. The Objector apart from the present applicant has also lodged FIR against many other persons also, details of which have been given in paragraph 4 of the reply to the objection filed by the applicant.

In the case of Amanullah (supra), the Apex Court observed in paragraph 19 as under:-

The term ‘locus standi’ is a latin term, the general meaning of which is ‘place of standing’. The Concise Oxford E