Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 376 (MP)

Vijay Kumar v. State of M. P.

2014-04-03

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
ORDER (ORAL) 1. By way of this petition under section 482 of CrPC the applicants have challenged the order dated 18.6.2012 passed by the JMFC Balaghat in Criminal Case No.1008/2012 whereby the complaint of the respondents No.2 and 3 was registered against the applicants for the offence under sections 294 and 323/34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Special Act”). 2. The factual backdrop of event giving rise to this petition is that the respondents No.2 and 3 had lodged a complaint against the applicants that the respondent No.2 Nitin Jadav was an Army man in Cobra Battalion No.208, Balaghat. On 11.9.2011 at about 10:00 AM the respondents No.2 and 3 appeared before the applicants and thereafter they were abused by the applicants on the basis of their caste and with obscene words. Also the respondent No.2 was assaulted by sticks, and therefore the respondent No.2 Nitin Jadav sustained a fracture in his leg. The respondent No.3 had sent an FIR dated 11.9.2011 to the Police Station AJAK Balaghat and SP Balaghat, but nothing was done by the police, and therefore the complaint was filed before the JMFC Balaghat. 3. After recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC the learned JMFC Balaghat has registered the complaint as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. After examining the contention of the complainant and the defence of the applicants, it would be apparent that the defence of the applicants was not available before the trial Court, and therefore, present matter is required to be considered under section 482 of CrPC for which the applicants have filed the present petition. The defence of the applicants was that the respondent No.2 Nitin Jadav remained absent for 60 days and thereafter he appeared before the applicant No.2 Arvind Tripathi whereas on that date the applicant No.1 was on tour and he was not available on the Headquarters. Thereafter the respondent No.2 was asked about his previous absence, then he told that he was suffering from typhoid and due to illness he could not come. Ultimately the respondent No.2 was sent to the District Hospital Balaghat and it was found that he was suffering from fever and his treatment was started. No such incident of assault was caused by the applicants. Ultimately the respondent No.2 was sent to the District Hospital Balaghat and it was found that he was suffering from fever and his treatment was started. No such incident of assault was caused by the applicants. Since the respondent No.2 was transferred to the Unit of Jammu Sector, 22 Battalion, and therefore he misbehaved with the applicants and lodged a false case. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and various documents filed by the applicants as well as statements under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC given by various witnesses in support of the complaint, it was alleged that the applicants assaulted the victim Nitin Jadav by sticks due to which he sustained a fracture in his leg. However, no MLC report or X-ray report was submitted along the complaint. When it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim did not sustained any fracture, then the complaint could not be registered for the offence under section 325 of IPC, and therefore, it was registered for the offence under section 323 of IPC. However, looking to the medical report dated 12.9.2011 given by the Medical Officer, Balaghat, which was the answer of query done by the Deputy Commander, Bt. 208, Balaghat, it appears that no injury was found to the victim Nitin Jadav when he was admitted in the District Hospital, Balaghat. He was treated for typhoid and fever. He was complaining pain in his back. However, in the evidence given by the various witnesses, it was not alleged that the applicants assaulted him on his back. As per the allegation, if the complainant would have assaulted by sticks, then he must have sustained so many injuries. Therefore, the contention of the witnesses that the applicants assaulted the victim by sticks appears to be false, and hence no offence under section 323 of IPC is made out against the applicants. 7. Similarly, the victim Nitin Jadav (PW 1) has stated the applicants abused him with obscene words and similarly Kamta (PW 2) and Dada Saheb (PW 3) have stated that the applicants were abusing the complainant with filthy abuses. However, no such words were told by any of the witnesses, and therefore it cannot be examined that the words told by the applicants were obscene words. However, no such words were told by any of the witnesses, and therefore it cannot be examined that the words told by the applicants were obscene words. Hence, when it was not established prima facie that the applicants told any obscene words to the complainant, then no offence under section 294 of IPC is made out against the applicants. 8. Similarly, the victim Nitin Jadav has stated that the applicants abused him on the basis of his caste. They told him to be “Mahar”, whereas Kamta and Dada Saheb did not corroborate the testimony of the complainant that the applicants abused him on the basis of words dependent upon the caste of the complainant. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the complainant cannot be accepted on this ground. The conduct of the victim appears that he absconded for 60 days, therefore he went to report in the office of the applicants along with his sister and brother-in-law. There was no need for the victim Nitin to take the relatives with him if he had visited to report on the duty. Under such circumstances, it appears that since the complainant was transferred to the Unit of Jammu Sector, he had created a scene against the applicants. In this context, the report dated 29.5.2012 given by I.G. Police, Balaghat may be considered in which it was found that the complaint was totally false and no such crime was committed by the applicants in their office. Under such circumstances, it appears that no offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is made out against the applicants. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, when no such alleged offence was made out against the applicants, for which the complaint was registered, then such complaint could not be considered in such a manner. The learned JMFC has committed an error of law in registering the complaint against the applicants. It is a good case in which the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of CrPC may be invoked. Consequently, the present petition filed by the applicants Vijay Kumar and Arvind Tripathi is hereby allowed. The proceeding of the Criminal Case No.1008/2012 pending before the JMFC, Balaghat is hereby quashed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the committal Court so that proceeding may be dropped against the applicants.