Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 550 (MP)

Awadesh Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2015-05-07

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 273/2009, pending before the JMFC, Chhindwara for offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 342, 147, 148, 149 and 500 of IPC and Sections 3, 10, 11 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as "Special Act"). 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondents No. 2 and 3 had lodged a criminal complaint before the CJM, Chhindwara on 28.3.1994 that the applicants being SHO and ASI at Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwara called the respondents No. 2 and 3 at Police station on 24.9.1994, at about 10 a.m. Jaya Bai, mother of the respondents No. 2 and 3 also accompanied them. The applicants and their companions shouted upon Jaya Bai to go away but, she could not go and therefore, the applicant No. 2 gave a slap on his face and therefore, swelling was caused on her mouth and thereafter, she went to her house. The respondents No. 2 and 3 were tortured. They had been abused with the words relating to their caste and assaulted by an iron rule on their backs. Both of them sustained injuries on their back, mouth and face. Again on 25.3.1994, Jaya Bai had moved an application under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. before CJM and notice was given to the applicants then, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were released at about 8 p.m. on 25.3.1994. Thereafter, a complaint was filed for the aforesaid offences. 3. The Magistrate has passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and after due investigation, SDOP Chhindwara has submitted a written report in the case addressed to S.P.Chhindwara, in which it was found that the complaint was false and baseless. The respondents No. 2 and 3 were called for interrogation and in front of Manish Pandey and lady Constable Tilak, they were asked some questions and thereafter, they left in the evening of 24.3.1994. Again they were called on 25.4.1994 and again at 4 p.m. they permitted to leave the police station. Entries were made in the concerned Rojnamacha, which was duly maintained in the police station. Again they were called on 25.4.1994 and again at 4 p.m. they permitted to leave the police station. Entries were made in the concerned Rojnamacha, which was duly maintained in the police station. After getting the report under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court examined the various witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter registered a complaint case. Arrest warrants were issued against the applicants and on having knowledge of criminal complaint, they preferred the present petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that Ganpati Manekar and his wife Nirmala Manekar had been killed on 16.1.1994 by one Dilip Manekar alongwith his companions. The respondents No. 2 and 3 were the sisters of accused Dilip. Respondents No. 2 and 3 alongwith their mother were called for interrogation to know the whereabouts of absconding accused Dilip and interrogation took place before Manish Pandey, who accompanied the respondents No. 2 and 3 and lady constable Tilak and on both the days, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were permitted to go back to their house. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was negative and before registration of case, it was for the JMFC to consider the report submitted by the superior officers of the applicants. It is further submitted that the complaint was registered by order dated 5.7.1997, if that order is perused then, it is totally a non speaking order. The Magistrate did not apply his mind that there is no penal provision under Sections 10 and 11 of the Special Act. Various Sections of offences as mentioned in the complaint were reproduced in the order passed by the JMFC on 5.7.1997 and therefore, order is bad in the law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has submitted that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were not required for investigation in the murder case of Ganpati and his wife. Also the respondents No. 2 and 3 were kept in the police station for approximately 34 hours and they were tortured and beaten by police officers. It is a grave case of cruelty done by the police and therefore, the applicants are facing the criminal complaint. 7. Also the respondents No. 2 and 3 were kept in the police station for approximately 34 hours and they were tortured and beaten by police officers. It is a grave case of cruelty done by the police and therefore, the applicants are facing the criminal complaint. 7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, some discrepancies and unnaturalness is visible in the allegations made in the complaint. It is true that the Judicial Magistrate First Class did not apply his mind while registration of a complaint case. He has reproduced the Sections in his order, which were mentioned in the complaint. It would be apparent that Sections 10 and 11 of Special Act are not penal Sections and no complaint can be registered for offences under Sections 10 and 11 of the Special Act. Actually it appears that the complainants wanted to get the case registered under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act. It would be apparent that if allegations made by the complainants in the complaint are considered then, there is no allegation against any police official that he tried to outrage the modesty of any of the complainant during the interrogation and therefore, prima facie no offence under Sections 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act could constitute against any of the applicants. Similarly, according to the complainant, alleged interrogation took place in interrogation room, which was neither a public place, nor near a public place and therefore, if the applicants would have abused the complainants on the basis of words relating to their caste then, still no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is made out. The trial Court has ought to consider such facts before passing the order of registration. 8. The inherent powers of this Court can be exercised only in a case, where an innocent person is prosecuted, without any reason. In the present case, as discussed above, no offence under Special Act was made out against the applicants and the allegation made by the respondents No. 2 and 3 to that respect were false. The trial Court could not consider the document, i.e. the report submitted by DSP in compliance to the order of the JMFC. In the present case, as discussed above, no offence under Special Act was made out against the applicants and the allegation made by the respondents No. 2 and 3 to that respect were false. The trial Court could not consider the document, i.e. the report submitted by DSP in compliance to the order of the JMFC. It was the duty of the trial Court to consider that report and it was the duty of the trial Court to examine Manish Pandey, who accompanied the respondents No. 2 and 3 while they were called in the police station and lady constable Tilak to arrive at proper conclusion. 9. There are two sets of evidence available to the trial Court. Firstly, that the respondents No. 2 and 3 and their mother blamed the applicants and their companions for such torture and harassment done by them and second set was a report of DSP, a superior officer of the applicants, in which it was mentioned that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were called for two days in day light and they were sent back after asking some questions in a respectful manner. Hence, it was for the trial Court to compare the evidence and to right down the reasons as to why the statements given by the respondents No. 2 and 3 were believable but, unfortunately the trial Court did not mention a single word as to why he registered the case. If these two sets of evidence are examined then, it would be apparent that there is a lot of contradictions in the statements of respondents No. 2 and 3. According to the respondent No. 2, she and her sister Gunta were given seats separately. Thereafter, T.I. has called both of them in a room and abused them with words relating to their caste. Thereafter, T.I. gave slaps to the respondent Gunta. However, no such specific allegation is made in the complaint that the applicant No. 1 gave any slap to the respondent No. 3 Gunta. Thereafter, according to Gunta, she and her sister were tortured at the same place and assaulted by "Policewala". When the respondents No. 2 and 3 could file a complaint case against police officers and officials by their name then, pleadings and allegations should have been given against the particular person, who assaulted them. Thereafter, according to Gunta, she and her sister were tortured at the same place and assaulted by "Policewala". When the respondents No. 2 and 3 could file a complaint case against police officers and officials by their name then, pleadings and allegations should have been given against the particular person, who assaulted them. If they did not know the name of concerned "Policewala" then, no specific names should have been given in the complaint of these persons, who were made accused in the complaint case. Again Chandrakala (P.W.1) in para 2 has stated that she and her sister were separately kept in two separate torture rooms and they were separately assaulted by "Policewalas". Again she had claimed that she saw that her sister was assaulted by an iron rule on her back and thereafter, they were directed to put their signatures on blank papers. 10. According to the pleadings made in the complaint, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were released on 25th March. Their mother had filed an application before CJM, Chhindwara, so that the respondents No. 2 and 3 be produced before the Court within 24 hours after their arrest and thereafter, they were released. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were released on 25th March and a private complaint was lodged on 28th March. Thus, in these three days, respondents No. 2 and 3 and their mother Jaya Bai would have been treated for their injuries and they could file treatment papers to show that they sustained injuries due to torture caused upon them. However, no single document has been produced by the respondents No. 2 and 3 to show that they or their mother had sustained injuries and they were treated. An adverse inference is to be drawn that the applicants and their companions did not assault the respondents No. 2 and 3 and their mother otherwise, on sustaining the injuries, they would have been treated by some private doctor or anyone and treatment papers would have been filed. 11. Looking to the material contradictions between the statements of the respondents No. 2 Chandrakala and respondent No. 3 Gunta and non filing of any treatment papers, their testimony comes in the cloud of doubt and the enquiry report submitted by DSP, Chhindwara appears to be acceptable. 11. Looking to the material contradictions between the statements of the respondents No. 2 Chandrakala and respondent No. 3 Gunta and non filing of any treatment papers, their testimony comes in the cloud of doubt and the enquiry report submitted by DSP, Chhindwara appears to be acceptable. It was possible that since brother of the respondents No. 2 and 3 was required by the police for a double murder case and they were called to the police station to know the whereabouts of Dilip Manekar then, to shelter their brother, a complaint was lodged before CJM, Chhindwara, so that a pressure would be created upon the SHO and I.O. of that case and they might have turned loose in investigation of double murder case. 12. It would be a sensational news for the public that the police has tortured the innocent persons but, if such type of criminal complaints are permitted to register which are not correct then, certainly moral of the Police force will go down and no crime shall be detected by any police officer. In the present case, looking to the report of DSP, Chhindwara, non examination of Manish Pandey and lady constable Tilak whose statements were annexed in the investigation report given by the DSP Chhindwara, contradictions in the statement of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and non filing of medical report or treatment papers relating to injuries caused to the respondents No. 2 and 3, prima facie indicates that respondents No. 2 and 3 could not prove anything against the applicants that either they assaulted them or they wrongfully confined them or they had caused any crime with them. Under such circumstances, order relating to registration of complaint case, which is not at all a speaking order, cannot be sustained. Innocent police officers cannot be tortured by facing a criminal complaint for a longer period. Under these circumstances, it is a good case, in which inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 5.7.1997 passed by the JMFC, Chhindwara is hereby quashed. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 5.7.1997 passed by the JMFC, Chhindwara is hereby quashed. Criminal complaint case filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 is hereby dismissed against the applicants No. 1 and 2 under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings against the applicants No. 1 and 2. 14. Copy of the order be sent to the Court below for information and compliance.