Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 947 (MP)

Prabha Sahu v. State of M. P.

2012-10-01

S.K.GANGELE

body2012
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 CrPC against the order dated 12.5.2010 passed bythe revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.41/2010 and the order dated 5.1.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Gwalior in Criminal Case No.826/2010, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offence under section 500 of IPC. 2. The respondent No.2 Maniram filed a private complaint against the petitioner and other persons for registration of complaint against them for commission of offence under section 3(1)(viii) and (ix) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sections 500 and 209 of IPC. The respondent No.2 pleaded in the complaint that the husband of the petitioner had lodged a false FIR against the respondent No.2 and other persons to the effect that they had abducted the daughter of the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, an offence under sections 363 and 366 of IPC has been registered against the respondent No.2 and his wife at Crime No.556/2005. It is pleaded by the respondent No.2 that daughter of petitioner herself made a statement before the Court that she had married with the son of the respondent No.2 on 30.11.2005 at Jaipur and thereafter she had been living with him as his wife. From their wedlock a daughter was born. She further deposed that since the marriage was against the wishes of her father and mother, hence, they had lodged a report in regard to her abduction at Police Station Janakganj and on the basis of said report, an offence was registered. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and facts of the case, the trial Judge had taken cognizance against the petitioner and other persons for commission of offence under section 500 of IPC. Against the aforesaid order, a criminal revision was filed and that revision was also dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has committed an error of law in taking cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offence under section 500 of IPC. It is further submitted that in similar case filed under section 482 CrPC (M.Cr.C. No.3044/2011), this Court has quashed the proceedings against one Ramlal Sahu. A copy of the order passed in M.Cr.C. No.3044/2011 has also been filed. 4. It is further submitted that in similar case filed under section 482 CrPC (M.Cr.C. No.3044/2011), this Court has quashed the proceedings against one Ramlal Sahu. A copy of the order passed in M.Cr.C. No.3044/2011 has also been filed. 4. This Court in the case of Ramlal Sahu v. State of M.P. [M.Cr.C. No.3044/2011) vide order dated 10.12.2011 has quashed the proceedings against Ramlal Sahu. This Court has given the following reasons in passing the aforesaid order : “It is not in dispute that daughter of the petitioner was absconded since 15.9.2005 and natually conduct of a person whose daughter is missing will be that of lodging a report to the police and help the police in investigation. Section 499 of IPC defining “defamation” provides as under : ‘499. Defamation. -- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.’ Therefore, looking to the provisions of definition of defamation, the imputation of any allegation concerning any person must be with an intention to harm its reputation and lodging of a report of a missing daughter does not fall in the category of imputation of false charge or with an intention to harm the reputation of any person. If the police has found that daughter of petitioner has revealed in the Court that she has gone with her will with the son of respondent No.2 then, the allegation of her absconding and suspicion over the petitioner cannot be said to be with an intent to harm his reputation and any act done by the police authorities on the basis of evidence available before them cannot be taken as defamation of respondent No.2. The matter would have been different, if the petitioner has continued even the statement of his daughter to press his complaint and make allegation against the respondent No.2. The matter would have been different, if the petitioner has continued even the statement of his daughter to press his complaint and make allegation against the respondent No.2. On the other hand, petitioner has immediately withdrawn the complainant which shows the bona fides of petitioner for offence of defamation intention of accused for defaming any person is main consideration which is absent in the present case taking recourse to lodge the report and filing petitioner for habeas corpus before the Court is a fundamental right available to any person who is citizen of India. Therefore, act of petitioner cannot be said to have been done with an intention to harm the reputation of respondent No.2. Therefore, the act of learned trial Court in registering the complaint for the offence punishable under section 500 of IPC is normally an abuse of process of any Court which is to be provided under provisions of section 482 of CrPC. Respondent has also submitted that complaint has been registered against the wife of petitioner also and she is necessary party. Wife of petitioner has been impleaded as accused afterwards and it is independent right of petitioner to approach the Court for redressal. Therefore, petition is allowed. Order registering the offence under section 500 of IPC and further proceedings of criminal case dated 5.1.2010 with regard to Ramlal Sahu is hereby quashed. No further action will be taken by the learned trial Court in Crime No.826/10 pending before the ACJM, Gwalior.” 5. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that respondent No.2 and other family members were arrested. After registration of case, they were sent to jail and subsequently they were released. The matter was also reported in the news paper. It is mentioned in the news paper that a criminal case was registered against respondent No.2. It is a fact that daughter of the petitioner herself made a statement that she had married to son of the respondent No.2 on her own and since the marriage was against the Will of her father and mother, hence, they lodged a false FIR. Prima facie, there is enough evidence against the petitioner for registration of the offence. In the earlier order, this Court has not considered the aforesaid facts of the case. 6. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Prima facie, there is enough evidence against the petitioner for registration of the offence. In the earlier order, this Court has not considered the aforesaid facts of the case. 6. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.