Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1089 (MP)

Umesh Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-09-10

A.K.Shrivastava

body2013
ORDER 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.126/2012 inter alia framing charge under section 395/397 of IPC against the applicants, this revision application has been preferred by the applicants. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that if the written complaint Annexure A/2 lodged by the complainant–Lalita Devi dated 14.4.2012 upon which the FIR has been registered is taken into consideration in true perspective, no one could say that any of the ingredients evisaged under sections 395 and 397 of IPC are made out and if that is the position the learned trial Court committed an error in framing charge under sections 395 and 397 of IPC against the applicants. 3. On the other hand Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Panel Lawyer argued in support of the impugned order. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed. 5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that only against framing of charges under sections 395/397 IPC, they have filed this revision application and they have not filed the revision application against framing of the charges of other offences. 6. On bare perusal of the report Annexure A/2 of the complainant, nowhere it is mentioned in it that any theft has been committed by any of the applicant who are more than five in number. The definition of dacoity has been given in section 391 of IPC which reads thus : “391. Dacoity.- When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”. 7. At this juncture, the definition of robbery be also taken into consideration which reads thus : “390. Robbery.- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. 7. At this juncture, the definition of robbery be also taken into consideration which reads thus : “390. Robbery.- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.- Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robber.- Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person orto some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.” 8. If these two provisions are kept in juxtaposition to the written complaint Annexure A/2 and read conjointly, since none of the ingredients of sections 395 and 397 of IPC are mentioned in the report, therefore, according to me, the learned trial Court has erred in framing the aforesaid charge. 9. At this juncture, Shri Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the applicants further invited my attention to Annexure A/4 dated 28.4.2012 which is a report of Deputy Director, Prosecution addressed to Police Station Kotwali opining that since the ingredients of sections 395/397 of IPC are lacking from the complaint, these charges be deleted from the charge sheet. However, the same was not accepted by the Superintendent of Police Annexure A/5 dated 1.5.2012. Be that as it may. Since I have allowed the revision on merit holding that from the written complaint no offence under sections 395/397 of IPC is made out against the applicants, therefore, I am not dealing this argument. 10. For the reasons stated herein above, this revision application is allowed and the charges framed against the applicants under sections 395 and 397 of IPC are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the applicants are discharged from the said charge.