Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 854 (MP)

Ramgopal v. Ashok

2015-08-18

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2015
ORDER 1. This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under section 482 of the CrPC directed against order dated 12.2.2013 passed by the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, in Criminal Revision No.2/2012, whereby order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhattarpur, dismissing a private complaint under section 203 of the CrPC was affirmed. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous criminal case may briefly be stated thus: Deceased Dhaniram was elder brother of applicant Ramgopal Patel. He lived in his maternal uncle house at Brijpura. He had inherited property of his maternal uncle Sarju. Accused persons/respondents Ashok etc. who were cousins of the deceased, were also claiming the property on the basis of a will said to have been executed in their favour. The deceased Dhaniram was to appear before the Court of Tahsildar, Chhattarpur on 16.10.2007 in connection with case of mutation pending before that Court. However, the deceased was found murdered by means of a sharp-edged weapon in the morning of 15.10.2007. At that time Halke, another brother of deceased, was sleeping in the adjoining room. 3. First information report was lodged at 8.40 am on 16.10.2007 in Police Station, Civil Lines, Chhattarpur, by the applicant Ramgopal Patel. In the FIR, no doubt was expressed against anybody. After investigation, police could not solve the case and filed a closure report in the Court of CJM, Chhattarpur. 4. When the applicant learnt that closure report was being filed by Police Station, Civil Lines, Chhattarpur, he filed a private complaint against respondents Ashok, Anari, Jamna, Bhakki, Ramprasad and Parsu in respect of offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC in the Court of CJM, Chhhattarpur. It was alleged in the private complaint that in the evening of 15.10.2007, applicant had seen the accused persons/respondents on two motorcycles belonging to accused persons Parsu Patel and Ramprasad Patel near the well in Village-Saura. It was further alleged that a day before the date of incident accused persons had visited deceased in Village-Brijpura and had demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. They had abused and threatened to kill Dhaniram. An oral report of the incident was made by Dhaniram in Police Station Civil Lines, Chhattarpur. The accused persons had threatened that they would kill Dhaniram before the case of mutation pending before Tahsildar, Chhattarpur. They had abused and threatened to kill Dhaniram. An oral report of the incident was made by Dhaniram in Police Station Civil Lines, Chhattarpur. The accused persons had threatened that they would kill Dhaniram before the case of mutation pending before Tahsildar, Chhattarpur. It was further alleged in the private complaint that the police did not record the FIR as narrated by the applicant. The case was not investigated properly. The statements under section 161 were not recorded as stated by the witnesses and every effort was made to suppress the facts. The applicant/complainant Ramgopal made a written report in this regard to Collector, Chhattarpur on 27.2.2008 and to DGP on 19.12.2009; however, the police proceeded to file closure report in the Court of CJM, Chhattarpur; therefore, the applicant was compelled to file a private complaint. 5. The applicant examined himself and witnesses Guljarilal Patel, Halke Patel and Munnilal Patel under sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC, who supported the allegations made in the private complaint. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of counsel for the applicant that from very beginning the applicant had expressed doubts upon the respondents/accused persons, as they had strong motive to kill the deceased. The witnesses examined by applicant/complainant before the Court of CJM have narrated the incident that took place before the killing of Dhaniram wherein a demand of Rs.20,000/- was made and a threat was issued to the effect that Dhaniram would be killed before disposal of mutation case pending in the Court of Tahsildar. The applicant Ramgopal himself stated that he had seen the accused persons gathering at Village-Sauri at the well on the eve of the incident. Witness Guljarilal further stated that he had actually seen the accused persons departing from the house of the deceased at about 11.30 on fateful night; yet, learned CJM and learned ASJ failed to lend credence to the account given by complainant’s witnesses and proceed to dismiss the private complaint under section 203 of the CrPC. Thus, the Courts below grievously erred in dismissing the complaint and accepting the closure report. 7. This miscellaneous criminal case has been filed invoking inherent powers of the High Court. It is settled law that such powers are to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 8. Thus, the Courts below grievously erred in dismissing the complaint and accepting the closure report. 7. This miscellaneous criminal case has been filed invoking inherent powers of the High Court. It is settled law that such powers are to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 8. A perusal of the order under section 203 of the CrPC passed by Magistrate and the impugned order passed in revision there against by the Court of ASJ, reveals that first information report was lodged at 8.40 a.m. in the morning in which the dead body of deceased Dhaniram was discovered. In the FIR, no allegation against the accused persons was made. Not even a doubt was expressed to the effect that they might be responsible for murder of Dhaniram. It was fleetingly mentioned that a dispute regarding land is pending in Village-Saura. Private complaint was filed on 19.4.2011, i.e, about 3½ years after the date of incident. In the private complaint and statement of witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC, allegation against the respondent/accused persons have been made. However, it may be noted that after recording of the FIR on 16.10.2007 a detailed statement of applicant Ramgopal was recorded by police on 10.5.2008. In that statement also, Ramgopal has not disclosed the fact that a day before the incident accused persons had visited Dhaniram and had demanded money and had threatened to kill him. 9. Likewise complainant witnesses Guljarilal has stated under section 202 that he had actually the accused persons departing from the house of the deceased on fateful night; however, the police had recorded the statement of witness Guljarilal under section 161 on 27.11.2007, who had not disclosed aforesaid incident. On the contrary, he had stated that Dhaniram had illicit relation with a woman named Gulab Bai. The complainant witness Munnilal Pal states that altercation between Dhaniram and accused persons took place about a year before his murder. 10. It may further be noted that Halke brother of deceased lived in the same house. If a day before the incident accused persons had visited deceased and had threatened him as aforesaid, Halke would have known but he did not make any such statement before the police. 11. 10. It may further be noted that Halke brother of deceased lived in the same house. If a day before the incident accused persons had visited deceased and had threatened him as aforesaid, Halke would have known but he did not make any such statement before the police. 11. In aforesaid circumstances, both the Courts below have reached a conclusion that private complaint was filed after a delay of about 3½ years to falsely implicate the accused persons/respondents in a serious criminal case after Tahsildar had rejected the application for mutation in favour of the applicant and had mutated the land in favour of respondent Jamuna on the basis of a Will, by order dated 23.9.2008. 12. In aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that both the Courts below have recorded detailed and cogent reasons in their respective orders. It cannot be said that the impugned order upholding the dismissal of complaint under section 203 is either capricious or malicious. Thus, no case has been made of interfering with impugned order in exercise of extra ordinary powers reserved for the High Court under section 482 of CrPC. 13. Consequently, this application under section 482 of the CrPC deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine.