Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 947 (MP)

Jashvant Rathore v. State Of M. P.

2014-08-04

ALOK VERMA

body2014
ORDER : By this common order Criminal Revision Nos. 284/2014 and 619/2014 are being disposed of, as the both arise from the same impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Anuppur in S.T.No. 75/2010 on 27-1-2014. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that the accused Sujit Mishra filed an application under section 319(1) and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge praying thereby to summon Dilip Jagwani and Bikki Jagwani as accused in the case. The sessions trial before the learned Additional Judge was related to the land survey No. 58/3(ka) area 0.57 acre, village Samatpur, District Anuppur. It was alleged that by a forged document, said land was sold by one Nirmala Goyanka to Shanti Jagwani and Leela Jagwani. In the documents Dilip Jagwani and Bikki Jagwani signed as attesting witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal and others vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2013 SC 3018 , found that Sessions Court can take cognizance against any person and summon him as an accused at any stage after case is committed to the Sessions Court for trial. 3. Following this principle and after going through the facts of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Shankar Kumar Thakurta, the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 619/2014 and Jashvant Rathore, the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 284/2014 introduced one Smt. Gayatri Verma as bhumi swami in place of Nirmala Goyanka, the real bhumiswami and got the forged sale-deed executed and, accordingly, the revisionists in both the cases were arraigned as accused in the case and bailable warrant was issued against them. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the present revisions are filed on the ground that before recording any evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, the Court cannot take cognizance against any person who has not impleaded as an accused by the investigating officer. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005(5) MPHT 19(NOC), and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007 Cri.LJ. 3198 (SC). 6. In the case of Mohd. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005(5) MPHT 19(NOC), and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007 Cri.LJ. 3198 (SC). 6. In the case of Mohd. Shafi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court must arrive at satisfaction that there exists possibility that accused, so summoned, in all likelihood would be convicted and such satisfaction can be arrived at upon completion of cross-examination of witness, if the order passed at instance of witness at stage of examination under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such an order is improper. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed in this case are that :- "But we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken." 7. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the case of Dharam Pal (supra), which is a judgment of constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this judgment the controversy raised by two judgments; one in the case of Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16 , and the other is a decision of a Three Judge Bench in the case of Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1998) 7 SCC 149 . Ranjit Singh's case disapproved the observations made in Kishun Singh's case. In this case, it was laid down that Sessions Court has power under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to take cognizance of an offence and summon other persons whose complicity in the commission of the trial could prima facie be gathered from the material available on record. In this case, it was laid down that Sessions Court has power under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to take cognizance of an offence and summon other persons whose complicity in the commission of the trial could prima facie be gathered from the material available on record. However, in the case of Ranjit Singh (supra), the Three-Judge Bench disagreed with the observations given in the case of Kishun Singh (supra) and held that from the stage of committal till the Sessions Court reached the stage indicated in section 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that Court could deal only with the accused referred to in section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no intermediary stage till then enabling the Sessions Court to add any other person to the array of the accused. This controversy has now been resolved by the constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal (supra), dealing with the case law on the controversy, in para 30 of its judgment, the Court observed that :- "30. The Reference to the effect as to whether the decision in Ranjit Singh's case (supra) was correct or not in Kishun Singh's case (supra), is answered by holding that the decision in Kishun Singh's case was the correct decision and the learned Sessions Judge, acting as a Court of original jurisdiction, could issue summons under Section 193 on the basis of the records transmitted to him as a result of the committal order passed by the learned Magistrate." 8. Thus, the law as laid down in this case is that the Sessions Court can take cognizance against the persons who are not as accused in the case and issue summons to them to face trial along with other accused. 9. Coming to the merits on the case, learned Court has observed that the revisionists in the present revisions were instrumental in the deal and took active part in the execution of forged sale deed. prima facie there appears to be no illegality and irregularity in the conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at this stage when charges are yet to be framed in the case. 10. In view of the above, I find no merits in these revisions and, accordingly, the revisions are dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.