Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 234 (MP)

Chetan v. Ajit

2012-02-24

M.C.GARG

body2012
ORDER 1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two Misc. Criminal Cases one filed by the complainant being M.Cr.C.No. 275/2012 and the other filed by Chetan, one of the accused, who has been directed to be summoned by the Sessions Court being M.Cr.C.No. 6241/2011. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant namely Shri Ajit against Chetan and others alleging that the accused persons had indulged in an act of kidnapping Ajit, the complainant. 3. Earlier on a complaint filed by the petitioner coupled with an application under section 156 (3) CrPC on a report filed by the police, no case was found to have been committed by Ajit and later on, on the basis of evidence led by the complainant and his witnesses, a complaint under section 200 CrPC was again dismissed. It is against that order, the complainant Ajit filed a revision before the Sessions Court. In the said petition, the Sessions Court allowed the revision petition in part, but without hearing the accused Chetan and directed to register the case against Chetan under section 294, 323, 506 and 363 of IPC. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner in M.Cr.C.No. 6241/2011 that such procedure adopted by the revisional Court is not sustainable in as much as the report of the investigating agency and the order of the Magistrate in dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant, the Court passed an order of acquittal in favour of the accused Chetan and thus if any order was to be passed against him he ought to have been granted an opportunity of hearing. Having not done so, the order of the revisional Court dated May, 10, 2011 is not sustainable in law. It is also submitted that the order was even otherwise not proper in as much as while dealing with a petition under section 397 CrPC., the Sessions Court ought to have directed holding of an enquiry under section 398 Cr.P.C., in a case where an order dismissing the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. was passed. The said section for the sake of reference is reproduced as under :- “398. The said section for the sake of reference is reproduced as under :- “398. Power to order inquiry : -- On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrate subordinate to him to make and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 of sub-section (4) of section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.” 5. The proviso to aforesaid section clearly goes to show that no adverse order could be passed against a person who has been discharged, in this case is Chetan, petitioner in M.Cr.C.No. 6241/2011. 6. According to the petitioner/complainant, who filed M.Cr.C.No. 275/2012, the Sessions Court failed to take note of the evidence which was available on record as well as the request of the petitioner to call for the details of telephone calls which would involve the other accused persons also. However, it has not been done. He also has grievance against the impugned order. 7. Taking all these facts into consideartion, the order of the Sessions Court dated 10.5.2011 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Sessions Court to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner Chetan of M.Cr.C.No. 6241/2011 as well as petitioner Ajit, the complainant in M.Cr.C.No. 275/2012. The Sessions Court will also issue notice to the other accused persons against whom a complainant wish to initiate the proceedings as it would be necessary to hear the before any order is passed against him. 8. For the aforsaid purpose, the case is now listed before the Sessions Court on 14.3.2012. 9. Copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Court for information. 10. With these observations, both the petitions are disposed of.