Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 253 (MP)

Hargovind Lodhi v. State of M. P. and another

2008-02-14

B.M.GUPTA

body2008
ORDER 1. This petition is for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1336/07 in the Court of JMFC, Guna, for the offence punishable under sections 457 and 354 of IPC. 2. As submitted by Shri Agrawal that one complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 Ahilyabai against the petitioner in the Court of learned Magistrate. The main allegation in paragraph 2 of the complaint goes as under: ^^;g fd] fnukad 6-3-2007 dh jkr dks 11&12 cts dh ckr gS fd vfHk;ksxh ds [ksr ij /kfu;k dh Qly dVh gqbZ iM+h Fkh mldks ns[kus ds fy;s vfHk;ksfx;k dk ifr x;k gqvk Fkk fd gjxksfoan tks vfHk;ksxh ds vkaxu esa vk x;k vkSj vfHk;ksfx;k mlkjs esa lks jgh Fkh gjxksfoan us vfHk;ksfxrk dk gkFk lksrs esa idM+k vkSj oks vfHk;ksfx;ksa ds lkFk cqjk dke cnek"kh djuk pkgrk Fkk vfHk;ksfx;k gkFk NqM+k jgh Fkh oks ugha NksM+ jgk Fkk vfHk;ksfx;k fpYyk jgh Fkh NqM+kvksa&NqM+kvksa bruh gh nsj esa vfHk;ksfx;k dk ifr vk x;k vkSj mlus tc vfHk;ksfx;k dk gkFk idM+rs vfHk;qDr dks ns[kk tks vfHk;ksfx;k ds gkFk ugha NksM+ jgk Fkk mldks ekjihV djds NqM+k;k vxj oks ugha NqM+k;k gksrk rks gjxksfoan vfHk;ksfx;k ds lkFk tcjnLrh cqjk dke djrkA** As submitted, on the same day, this complaint was sent to Police Station Fategarh for registration under section 156 (3) of CrPC, upon which an FIR Crime No. 86/07 has been registered at Police Station, Fategarh, District Guna for aforementioned offences against the petitioner. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the Criminal Case No. 1336/ 06 is pending. 3. Shri Agrawal has further submitted that as per this complaint, the incident has been mentioned to have happened on 6th March, 2007 at 2324 hours and upon sending the complaint, it has been registered on 6th April, 2007 i.e. after one month of the incident. Prior to this alleged incident, one FIR Crime No. 76/07 was lodged by the petitioner at the same police station against one Charan S/o Hiralal Lodhi, who is the husband of respondent No.2, complainant with regard to the incident happened on 5th March, 2007, at 22 hours. This report was lodged on next day of the incident i.e. 6th March, 2007. Petitioner was medically examined. As per MLC report eight injuries were found at his person on 6th March, 2007 at 6.20 hours. These injuries were referred for x-ray. This report was lodged on next day of the incident i.e. 6th March, 2007. Petitioner was medically examined. As per MLC report eight injuries were found at his person on 6th March, 2007 at 6.20 hours. These injuries were referred for x-ray. One statement in the shape of a dying declaration was recorded on 6th March, 2007 at 8.10 hours in which he has stated that he was beaten by the husband of the respondent No. 2 along with three other unknown persons. Vide x-ray report dated 6th March, 2007, out of eight, seven fractures were found at the person of the petitioner and he was admitted in the District Hospital, Guna and remained admitted since 6th March, 2007 to 26th March, 2007, as per discharge ticket dated 26th March, 2007. These documents show that at the time of the alleged incident against the petitioner, he was seriously injured and admitted in the hospital, which is at a distant place from the place of alleged incident. It was not possible for him to commit the alleged incident just to create pressure upon the complainant to compromise in this case, the aforementioned false complaint on which the impugned FIR has been registered and criminal proceedings are pending has been filed. Hence the same deserves to be quashed. 4. Shri D.S. Chauhan, for the State, has submitted that there appears a doubt in the case of respondent No.2 on the basis of the FIR and the injury report of the petitioner. 5. Shri Tiwari, the counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that all the charge-sheet papers have not been supplied nor have been filed in the Court. On what basis the charge has been filed, in the circumstances, he cannot say. As per information, during trial the statements of respondent No.2 and her husband have been recorded. The petition is pending since 10.9.2007 in which respondent No.2 has appeared on 1.2.2008. Till today the required details could have been known by him. 6. Upon consideration of the contentions on behalf of the petitioner which get support from the documents on record and that too is not countered by the respondent State, it appears that at the time of incident, the petitioner was seriously injured sustaining seven grievous hurts at his person and was admitted in the Government hospital. 6. Upon consideration of the contentions on behalf of the petitioner which get support from the documents on record and that too is not countered by the respondent State, it appears that at the time of incident, the petitioner was seriously injured sustaining seven grievous hurts at his person and was admitted in the Government hospital. It was not possible for him to come at a distant place of incident for committing the alleged offence. As contended, it appears that as a counter blast, this report has been lodged against the petitioner which appears concocted and false and also an abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the proceedings pending in aforementioned case in the Court of learned Magistrate deserve to be quashed.