Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1026 (MP)

Anil Sahni @ Titu v. State of M. P.

2016-11-10

S.K.SETH

body2016
ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6893/2016 as it arises out of the common order passed by the C.J.M. Satna dated 22.2.2016 taking cognizance against the applicants for offences punishable under section 452, 294, 147, 307 and 302 of the IPC. 2. In addition to this in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.17190/2016, applicant Naresh Kaila is also assailing the validity of the order dated 2.9.2016 passed by 1st A.S.J. Satna in Criminal Revision No.3400066/2016. Facts in brief as alleged are as under :- 3. Sapna Jaiswal @ Neelu (since deceased) with her husband Sanjay Jaiswal was residing at a rented premises belonging to Sahan's at Satna proper. Her maternal Aunt Smt. Madhubala lives in a opposite building. Eviction proceeding by landlord is going on against Sanjay Jaiswal in the civil Court at Satna. 4. On 18.1.2016 at about 6.30 in the evening, Sapna Jaiswal and her Aunt Smt. Madhubala were together in the residence of Sapna Jaiswal while Pradeepram, a domestic helper was attending daily chore. At about 6.30 in the evening, it is alleged that accused persons (applicants herein) came and demanded vacant possession of rented premises immediately, failing which, they would burn her alive. It is alleged that some verbal altercation took place and one of the accused persons poured Kerosene over Sapna and another put her ablaze. It is alleged that incident took place in presence of Smt. Madhubala and Pradeepram. Hearing the cry, a crowed gathered there and ultimately Sapna, Madhubala and Pradeepram were taking to the hospital. Smt. Sapna Jaiswal scummed to the burn injuries but before that her dying declaration was recorded by Tahsildar. A written FIR of Madhubala was presented by Sanjay Jaiswal in the Police Station Kolgawan which started the investigation rolling. After investigation, the Investigating Officer found that no offence was made out. Thereafter, matter was examined by higher Police Official and investigation was handed over to the CID Jabalpur. The CID Jabalpur also after investigation came to the conclusion that prima facie no offence was made out, therefore, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report under section 173 of the CrPC for discharge of accused persons. 5. Smt. Madhubala file a protest petition opposing the final report alleging that Police had not investigated the crime in impartial and fair manner and her protest may be treated as a complaint. 5. Smt. Madhubala file a protest petition opposing the final report alleging that Police had not investigated the crime in impartial and fair manner and her protest may be treated as a complaint. Learned JMFC after recording the statement of Madhubala, Sanjay Jaiswal, Dr. Rekha Maheshwari and Akhlesh Kumar Sharma-Tahsildar, prima faice found sufficient material to take cognizance and therefore, by order dated 22.2.2016 directed the registration of a criminal case against applicant. The order passed by the C.J.M Satna was challenged in revision by Naresh Kaila and Yogendra @ Pintu Singh which was dismissed by the 1st A.S.J. Satna vide order dated 2.9.2016. Hence these two petitions under section 482 of the CrPC. 6. At the outset, it may be said that we are constrained to make any observation because the criminal case is pending against the accused persons lest it may prejudice to them during the trial. Although, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has extensively referred to various case diary statements including Medical legal report and dying declaration so as to invite observation of this Court on the material collected by the Police to contend that the Khatma report (final report under section 173 of CrPC) was justified and Sapna Jaiswal died a suicidal death. The learned C.J.M Satna treating the protest petition as private complaint and after recording the statement of witnesses in support of the complaint, prima facie found sufficient material to take cognizance of the offences and directed registration of criminal case against applicants. 7. The C.J.M. Satna has exercised the judicial discretion which cannot be said to be perverse. The order of the learned C.J.M. Satna was under the judicial scrutiny by the revisional Court which also found no infirmity and illegality with the order passed by the C.J.M. 8. Without making any further comment in the matter, we find that it is not a case where this Court should exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the CrPC. This Court will not interfere under section 482 of CrPC when there is no misuse of any abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The inherent powers cannot be exercised in order to circumvent or override provisions of CrPC. 9. This Court will not interfere under section 482 of CrPC when there is no misuse of any abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The inherent powers cannot be exercised in order to circumvent or override provisions of CrPC. 9. We find that the view taken by the two Courts below is in accordance with law, therefore, it is not open to the applicant to question such an order by invoking to his aid the provisions of the section 482 of CrPC. 10. In this view of the matter, I find no justification to set aside the orders passed by the C.J.M Satna and the revisional Court. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. As an abundant caution, we make it absolutely clear that any observations made by us while passing this order shall not come on the way of the Sessions Judge or cause prejudice, either to the prosecution or to the defence while make it available to the accused persons at the time of trial. 12. Let a copy of this order be retained in the file of connected matter. 13. It will be open to the accused persons to take whatever legal defence available to them under the law. Amit Singh for applicant; Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State; Dipak Pandharkar for respondent No.2.