Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 932 (MP)

Govardhan Singh v. State of M. P.

2011-08-16

M.C.GARG

body2011
ORDER Hon'ble Mr. M.C. Garg, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.PC for expunging the remarks recorded by the learned Magistrate in the impugned judgment dated 23-3-10 delivered in Criminal Case No. 1906 of 04. 2. The petitioner who lodged a complaint against one Harishankar respondent No. 2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khategaon for having committed various offence, was a witness. After trial of the case, the accused/ respondent No. 2 was acquitted. However, the learned Magistrate passed the following orders in Para 16 of the judgment making disparaging remarks against the petitioner and direct the Department concerned to initiate a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner. The relevant observation in Para 16. reads as under :-- (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Please write to contact' if the vernacular matter is required.) 3. Nobody has appeared for 2nd respondent despite service. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate. 5. Learned petitioner's Counsel has relied upon a judgment of Apex Court delivered in the case of Kishansingh and another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 233 . On the strength of this judgment it is submitted that passing of such remarks by the Trial Court against the petitioner who is simply a complainant and shut down of criminal investigation without giving him an opportunity of hearing, is not tenable in law, as such the remarks are liable to be expunged from the judgment of the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to Paras 32 and 39 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under :-- 32. It is unfortunate that the Trial Court has made a caustic remark that there was falsehood on the part of Gopal Singh (P.W. 4) as to demand of dowry by accused No. 1 Manomohan Singh. A Court of law may not accept a particular part of the evidence considering the other facts and circumstances on record. But that does not necessarily mean that what was stated by the witness was false. In fact, Gopal Singh (P.W. 4) was believed by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court. A Court of law may not accept a particular part of the evidence considering the other facts and circumstances on record. But that does not necessarily mean that what was stated by the witness was false. In fact, Gopal Singh (P.W. 4) was believed by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court. It may be that the witness had committed some mistake in giving the period during which dowry demand was made by accused No. 1 Manmohan Singh. If that part of the evidence is not consistent with the facts on record, the Court may not accept it. But only for that reason, the Court should not make disparaging remarks as has been done by the Court. 39. In the case on hand, in our judgment, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to go to the extent of describing the evidence of Gopal Singh (P.W. 4) to be false. Even if it is conceded that in the light of other evidence on record, the Court was not convinced as to the demand of dowry by accused No. 1 Manmohan Singh. 10/12 days prior to the incident, the Court could have acquitted accused No. 1 on that ground, in our considered opinion, however, it was certainly not a case of making scathing remarks against the witness. All those remarks are, therefore, ordered to be deleted from the record. 6. A bare reading of the aforesaid two paragraphs of the judgment supports the plea taken by the learned Counsel. Nothing contrary has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned Government Advocate. As already observed, nobody has appeared for 2nd respondent. In these circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482, Cr.PC is allowed and it is ordered that the observations made by the Trial Court in Para 16 against the petitioner Gowardhansingh marked as A to A are hereby deleted from the judgment of Trial Court. 7. A copy of this order be forwarded to the State Government as well as the Janpad Panchayat, Khategaon for information. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.