Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 216 (MP)

Ashok v. Deewan

2016-03-10

M.K.MUDGAL

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for setting aside the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by Second ASJ (FTC) Sabalgarh District Morena in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2009 whereby, the order passed by learned JMFC Sabalgarh dated 24.7.2009 rejecting the private complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents No.1 to 5 for offences under sections 498A, 304B and 201 of IPC, has been affirmed. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that the marriage of deceased Lalo Bai daughter of the complainant was solemnized with one Deewan i.e. the respondent No.1 of village Mangrol on 5.8.2006. After marriage, said Deewan started forcing deceased to bring a motorcycle and other articles from her father. The fact of demanding dowry by the respondent Deewan and other co-accused was also disclosed by the deceased to the complainant and her mother from time to time. Thereafter on 24.3.2008 one Jagmohan of village Mangrol informed the complainant that on previous night of 23.3.2008, respondent Deewan brutally beat the deceased, due to which, she sustained severe injuries and asked the complainant to go with him to see the deceased. On reaching village Mangrol, the complainant found the dead body of his daughter Lalo lying on the pyre in the cremation ground. There were several injuries on the body of the deceased, hence, the complainant tried to pacify the respondents-accused not to cremate the dead body and first to get the post-mortem of the deceased conducted but the respondents refused to do so and forcibly committed cremation of the dead body. Hence, on the same day the complainant went to Police Station Tetra and reported the matter to the police but his complaint was not registered. Thereafter, he filed applications/complaints to the SDOP and SP concerned to get his complaint recorded against the respondents accused for the aforesaid offences as stated earlier but since nothing was done hence, the petitioner/complainant was left with no option but to file a criminal complaint before JMFC Sabalgarh district Morena against the respondents-accused under sections 498A, 304B and 201 of IPC. But the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. But the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional Court on the ground that the order of trial Court was illegal and contrary to law as prima facie case i.e. offences under sections 498A, 304B and 201 of IPC are made out against the respondents/accused. But that revision was also been dismissed by the revisional Court giving rise to this petition. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the learned Courts below have committed error in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, as statements of four witnesses were recorded before the trial Court under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC but the said statements have been disbelieved by the trial Court arbitrarily without any sufficient reason. The counsel further argued that the deceased who was near about 20 years of age was murdered by her husband as well as by her in-laws in their house, in spite of that fact, the evidence produced by the petitioner was not properly considered by the trial Court“as well as by the revisional Court. Hence, both the orders be set aside and the trial Court be directed to reconsider the evidence for taking cognizance of the offences. 4. Learned PP as well as the counsel for the respondents submit that the finding recorded by both the Courts below are just and proper as the alleged incident took place in the night of 23rd March, 2008. As per the contents of the report submitted to the SP Morena on 6.8.2008 and the statements of the witnesses, when the complainant came to learn about the incident, he arrived at the cremation ground and found that the dead body of his daughter was lying on the pyre for cremation. He requested the respondents to get her post-mortem conducted in the hospital but the said request was refused by them but no report was lodged by him on 24.3.2008 though it has been averred in the said report and the complaint that the reports were made by him to the concerned police station as well as to the SDOP yet, copies of the said reports were not produced on record. The photo copy of the report submitted to SP concerned indicates that firstly, it was submitted on 6.8.2008 i.e. after near about three months 15 days. The photo copy of the report submitted to SP concerned indicates that firstly, it was submitted on 6.8.2008 i.e. after near about three months 15 days. The said circumstances indicate that the entire story put forth by the petitioner is totally concocted and baseless. The counsel further argues that there is no evidence on record to ascertain the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature. Moreover, when the said report was submitted to the SP Morena, a merg was registered and the matter was inquired into. After recording the statements of the witnesses, it was found by the police that the story put-forth by the petitioner is not correct and no offence is made out against the respondents as the petitioner wanted to get her second daughter married to respondent No.1 Deewan but he and his family members did not agree to the same, because of that, the report was lodged after three months. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the state as well as the respondents prays for rejection of this petition. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 5. On perusal of the trial Court's record and the evidence, it transpires that the alleged incident took place on 23.3.2008 but no report was immediately lodged by the petitioner who allegedly arrived on the spot on 24.3.2008 when the dead body of his daughter was lying on the pyre for cremation. If the report was not lodged by the concerned police station, the matter could have been reported to the higher authorities by registered post as well as by the other mode under section 154(3) of CrPC but it was not done so. At the first time, the report was submitted to the SP Morena on 6.8.2008 i.e. after near about three months 15 days. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the death of the deceased was either homicidal in nature or unnatural. The entire story was put-forth by the petitioner after about four months. The matter was inquired into by the police but the allegations made by the petitioner were not found to be correct. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is inferred that the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court have not committed any error in dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner. The matter was inquired into by the police but the allegations made by the petitioner were not found to be correct. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is inferred that the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court have not committed any error in dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner. The scope to interfere in the said orders under section 482 of CrPC is very limited. Neither any irregularity nor any illegality is found in the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court. Aforesaid finding recorded by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court is correct, proper and legal based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and no perversity is apparent in those orders. 7. In view of the above, no grounds are made out for any interference in the impugned orders of Court below. 8. Hence, this petition being bereft of any substance is dismissed hereby.