Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1114 (MP)

Nandu Sharma v. State of M. P.

2016-12-06

J.P.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 CrPC, has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of Criminal Case No.510/2012 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior for the offence under sections 323/34, 506B and 452 IPC which has been registered on the basis of private complaint filed by the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare. 2. The petitioners have asserted that earlier, petitioner No.2, Neeraj had lodged a complaint against the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare, Manoj Bohare and Pappu alias Dinesh which was registered at Crime No.30 of 2012 for the offences under sections 294, 324/34, 323/34 and 506 IPC at Police Station, Dabra alleging that the aforesaid accused usually threw garbage whereby creating unhygienic conditions in front of the house of Neeraj. On resistance, they abused Neeraj and caused injury by luhangi, on head as a result sustained injury. When the petitioner No.4, Radheshyam Sharma intervened to rescue Neeraj, he (Radheshyam Sharma) was also assaulted with luhangi by Manoj and sustained injury, on his head. After investigation, police filed challan against the respondent No.2 and the other accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Dabra, District Gwalior. The trial Court vide judgment dated 15.5.2014 passed in Criminal Case No.159/2012 convicted the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare and the other companion accused. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred appeal. The appeal has been dismissed upholding the conviction by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior vide judgment dated 29.6.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.230/2014, however, set aside the jail sentence by enhancing the fine amount. 3. It is further alleged that the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare faced with the aforesaid conviction and order of sentence has filed a private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior with an ulterior motive asserting that on 10.1.2010 at about 10.15 a.m. an altercation had taken place between them wherein it is complained that petitioners have abused him due to flow of water from the drain and thereafter, the complainant returned back to his home. The petitioners/accused entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted him with lathis and threatened to kill him. The petitioners/accused entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted him with lathis and threatened to kill him. The private complaint was registered at Criminal Case No.510/2012 and after recording evidence, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and framed charge under sections 323/34 and 506B IPC and a finding has been recorded that no offence is made out under section 452 IPC. Against that finding, the respondent No.2/complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.295/2015 before I Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior and the said Court by order dated 3.12.2015 directed the learned trial Court to frame charge under section 452 IPC as well. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the cases, i.e., Criminal Case No.30/2012 (supra), and the present Criminal Case No.510/2012 are related to the same incident. It is submitted that the criminal case instituted by the petitioner No.2, Neeraj against the respondent No.2/complainant in the present case has attained finality in Criminal Appeal No.230/2014 (supra). Therefore, the proceedings instituted on the private complaint filed by the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bohare if allowed to continue, the same shall amount to misuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case No.510/2012 be set aside. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan and another [ AIR 2016 SC 4245 ], it is submitted that the petition under section 482 CrPC, ought not to be dismissed merely on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of filing revision petition under section 397 CrPC. 5. Learned State's counsel has supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that merely on the ground that one cross-case had been disposed of, the proceedings of another case cannot be quashed as both the cases have separate identity. It is submitted that the parties are bound to adduce evidence before the Court in both the cases and the evidence adduced in another case cannot be allowed to be read in another case. Similarly, the findings recorded in one case cannot be considered in another case. It is submitted that the parties are bound to adduce evidence before the Court in both the cases and the evidence adduced in another case cannot be allowed to be read in another case. Similarly, the findings recorded in one case cannot be considered in another case. He has further submitted that so far as objection of the petitioners that prima facie no case is made out against them on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent No.2/complainant in the other case, i.e., Criminal Case No.159/2012 (supra), is concerned, at this stage, the credibility or veracity of the material are not required be tested as the parties are yet to lead their evidence in the present Criminal Case No.510/2012. Hence, as all the grounds raised by the petitioners have no substance, the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 7. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, in the opinion of this Court, this petition has no substance for the reason that the proceedings instituted by the petitioners against the respondent No.2/complainant and his companions registered at Crime No.30/2012 by Police Station, Dabra (supra), had attained finality in Criminal Appeal No.230/2014 (supra). Therefore, the proceedings instituted on the basis of private complaint filed by respondent No.2 cannot be discontinued as both the cases have separate identity. Further, the parties are required to lead evidence and take defence in each case separately and the material/evidence of one case cannot be read in another case. Similarly, the finding of one case cannot be considered in another case. In such cases, it is expected that with a view to avoid contradictory findings, both the cases should be decided simultaneously. If that is not done for any reason, then on disposal of one case on merits cannot be said that the proceedings of other case ought to be quashed or stopped. In the present case, the proceedings in both the cases, i.e., Criminal Case No.159/2012 (supra), and Criminal Case No.510/2012 (supra), have not been conducted simultaneously. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners in this regard cannot be considered as if the proceedings are not allowed to continue in the present case, the same shall be deemed to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners in this regard cannot be considered as if the proceedings are not allowed to continue in the present case, the same shall be deemed to abuse of the process of the Court. Similarly, on the basis of the evidence adduced in support of the private compliant filed by the respondent No.2 and the material on record, the trial Court has rightly framed charges against the petitioners under sections 323/34, 506 and 452 IPC. In such situation, the prosecution of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law and is not required any interference by this Court. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla (supra), has held that petition filed under section 482 CrPC, cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that alternate remedy of filing revision petition under section 397 CrPC, is available. But, in the instant case, it is not a question for consideration whether this petition filed under section 482 CrPC, can be entertained or petitioners have to be relegated to avail the alternate remedy of filing revision petition under section 397 CrPC, Hence, the said judgment is of no assistance to the petitioners. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition under section 482 CrPC, filed by the petitioners for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.520/2012 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed.