Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1047 (MP)

Sewantibai v. Rajendra

2016-11-18

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2016
ORDER 1. This order shall govern disposal of Criminal Revision No.1426/2015 (Smt. Sewantibai v. Rajendra and another) and Criminal Revision No.1609/2015 (State of M.P. v. Rajendra). 2. Applicants viz. Smt. Sewantibai and the State have filed the aforesaid criminal revisions against the order dated 1.9.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Badwah, West Nimar in S.T. No.238/2014 whereby discharged the respondent Rajendra from the charge under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant-Sewantibai filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badwah along with an application under section 156(3) of CrPC stating that she is second wife of deceased Jagannath, whereas the respondent-Rajendra is son of first wife of deceased Jagannath. Jagannath died on 6.1.1992. Respondent-Rajendra filed an application before Nagar Palika, Badwaha for mutation of Plot No.80, Gopalpura, Badwah in his name on 22.6.1992 stating that after the death of his father-Jagannath and mother-Punibai he is the only heir of Jagannath. On that basis, name of respondentRajendra was mutated in regard to plot in question. It is stated that the respondent-Rajendra deliberately suppressed the fact the applicant-Sewantibai, the second wife of Jagannath and her son and daughters are also heir of Jagannath. When this fact came to the knowledge of applicant, she filed the present complaint. Learned Magistrate sent the complaint to Police Station Badwah, on the basis of which, Crime No.128/2014 was registered against the respondent-Rajendra for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Upon investigation, final report was filed against the respondent for the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned ASJ after hearing the parties found that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondent Rajendra, hence discharged him from the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved, applicant-Sewantibai and the State have filed these revisions. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant-Sewantibai submits that the respondent-Rajendra has filed the application for mutation of plot in question in his name deliberately suppressing the fact that the applicant-Sewantibai and her son and daughters are also heirs of deceased Jagannath. It is further submitted that after the death of Jagannath, all the legal representatives were taken on record in Second Appeal No.245/1990 which was pending before this Court. Thus, there is documentary evidence against the respondent-Rajendra. It is submitted that at the time of framing of charge, minute scrutiny of evidence is not required. It is further submitted that after the death of Jagannath, all the legal representatives were taken on record in Second Appeal No.245/1990 which was pending before this Court. Thus, there is documentary evidence against the respondent-Rajendra. It is submitted that at the time of framing of charge, minute scrutiny of evidence is not required. There is prima facie case against the respondent-Rajendra, however, learned ASJ discharged him. The impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate also supports the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant Sewantibai and submits that it is settled law that when there is strong suspicion against the accused, the Court should have framed the charge instead of passing the order of discharge. It is also settled law that at the time of framing the charge, the Court is not required to consider the evidence or the documents which are filed by defence. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Rajendra submits that after the death of Jagannath there was an oral partition between the heirs of Jagannath and Plot No.80, Gopalpura, Badwah came in the share of Rajendra. Hence, Rajendra had filed the application for mutation of the same in his name. This fact has been admitted by the applicant-Sewantibai in her police-statement. It is also submitted that the respondent Rajendra has not committed any offence of cheating or forgery. The record of Second Appeal No.245/1990 is not part of the final report and the application for bringing all the legal representatives on record in the said second appeal is not binding on respondent Rajendra. The applicant had filed a private complaint after 21 years and such a huge delay has not been explained. Thus, learned ASJ has rightly discharged the respondent-Rajendra after considering the material on record. No interference is called for and the revisions are liable to be dismissed. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. Jagannath died on 6.1.1992. Respondent-Rajendra filed the application for mutation of the plot in question before the Chief Municipal Officer on 22.6.1992. Applicant filed the present complaint after almost 21 years, but has not shown any reason as to why she did not take any action for such a long period of 21 years. Jagannath died on 6.1.1992. Respondent-Rajendra filed the application for mutation of the plot in question before the Chief Municipal Officer on 22.6.1992. Applicant filed the present complaint after almost 21 years, but has not shown any reason as to why she did not take any action for such a long period of 21 years. In the police-statement, complainant admitted that after mutation of plot in question in the name of Rajendra, Rajendra has constructed a house over it and even though she has not taken any action against Rajendra. It seems that the fact was in very well in the knowledge of applicant-Sewantibai from the very inception after the death of Jagannath that the plot in question is mutated in the name of Rajendra and Rajendra has constructed a house over it. 9. The basis of the complaint is the application submitted by Rajendra on 22.6.21992 in which it is stated that he is the only heir of his father-Jagannath and mother-Punibai who have expired, therefore, his name may be mutated in respect of Plot No.80, Gopalpura, Badwah. On receipt of said application, after completion of procedure, name of respondent-Rajendra was mutated. This may be case of suppression of fact, but it cannot be said that the respondent-Rajendra has cheated anybody or he has forged any document with an intention to cheat anybody. It is not the case in which forged document is used as a genuine one. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that learned ASJ has rightly discharged the respondent-Rajendra from the aforesaid charges. In my view, learned ASJ has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court. Thus, the revisions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. 11. Ordered accordingly. Let a copy of this order be retained in the connected case.