Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 293 (MP)

Sumarni Devi v. State of M. P.

2016-04-06

N.K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by Special Judge, Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti and Vyapharan Prabavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981, Bhind in an unregistered complaint “Smt. Sumarni Devi v. Ramveer Mishra and others” which was dismissed under section 203 of CrPC. 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant has filed a criminal complaint before the Special Judge on 19.8.2010 with the pleadings that on 11.10.2008 at about 2 p.m., the respondents No.2 to 8 entered in the house of the complainant having gun, ballam, sabbal and sticks. The respondent Nathuram Sharma had a Tractor with him. They robbed one buffalo and one cow from the house. Thereafter a four wheeler was brought and it was tried to rash upon the victim. Thereafter, the respondents No.2 to 8 took 10 quintals of wheat, one armacher costing Rs.30,000/-, cash of Rs.50,000/-, various golden ornaments, brass utensils, etc. forcefully. Jitesh (PW4) son of the complainant/applicant had tried to protest and therefore, Ram ratan Sharma fired with the gun. However, due to that firing one calf kept in the campus was killed. In the complaint, it was mentioned that the incident was seen by Prema Bai (PW2) and Nathuram (PW3). It was also mentioned that one Shrikant brother of Ramveer Sharma was killed by unknown person and false FIR was lodged in that case and, therefore, the husband of the complainant and her one son was in custody at that time and to take revenge such robbery was committed by the respondents No.2 to 8. In support Smt. Sumarni Mishra (PW1), Prema Bai (PW2), Nathuram (PW3) and Jitesh Mishra (PW4) were examined. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the complainant dismissed the complaint under section 203 of CrPC. 5. In the present case, there is a sole question as to whether the witnesses were believable or not ? 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that soon after the incident the complainant went to the police station to lodge FIR, but it was not written and thereafter she sent report to the higher officials and postal receipts of sending of such complaint was submitted before the trial court. Being a woman she could not do anything against the respondents No.2 to 8. Being a woman she could not do anything against the respondents No.2 to 8. However, a petition under section 482 of CrPC was filed which was withdrawn on 23.9.2009 because the applicant had an alternative remedy to file a criminal complaint and thereafter she filed a complaint. There was no delay from the side of the complainant/applicant in lodging a complaint. Under these circumstances, the witnesses of the complainant should have been believed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued against and opposed the registration of the complaint. 8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence recorded before the trial Court it would be apparent that the incident took place on 11.10.2008. No FIR is available in this case with the pretext that the police did not write any FIR on the request of the applicant. However, the matter was referred to the Station House Officer, Pawai, District Bhind and the SHO concerned has submitted a report dated 20.10.2011 that no such offence was made out. The complainant has mentioned the name of the witnesses in such a manner as if they were not related to the complainant, whereas, Prema Bai (PW2) is mother-in-law of the complainant and Jitesh Mishra (PW4) is her major son. Nathuram was not an independent witness. Such crime of robbery was committed in a broad day light, but it is surprising that no independent witness appeared before the trial Court to prove the incident. Some photographs were filed along with the complaint, where the complainant was trying to show that these photographs were taken of the house of the complainant soon after the incident. No person was examined to prove that he had taken such photographs and such photographs were taken soon after the incident. Similarly, the postal receipts were submitted to show that a written complaint was sent to the higher officials, but the copy of the complaint was not annexed with the postal receipts to show that the complaint was sent to the higher officials by that registered post. 9. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant tried to lodge the complaint under section 154 of CrPC whereas, if the concerned SHO was not registering the FIR then the complainant could send report to the Superintendent of Police concerned by registered post. 9. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant tried to lodge the complaint under section 154 of CrPC whereas, if the concerned SHO was not registering the FIR then the complainant could send report to the Superintendent of Police concerned by registered post. When she was advised to file a petition under section 482 of CrPC then it appears that she had an opportunity to meet with a law knowing person and, therefore, such complaint should have been filed soon after the dismissal of the petition. If she was advised to file a petition and thereafter the petition was withdrawn because the complainant had an alternative remedy then the complaint could have been filed within a reasonable time. It is true that the offence alleged by the complainant were punishable for such a period of imprisonment where law of limitation is not applicable. When the petition was filed on 5.4.2008 and withdrawn on 23.9.2009 i.e. after one year and five months, because the complainant had an alternative remedy to file a criminal complaint. Thereafter on 19.8.2010, a complaint was filed before the Special Judge i.e. after 11 months of withdrawal of the petition, but no explanation has been given by the complainant in that regard. 10. It was also found that there are material contradictions between the statements of various witnesses. The witness Prema bai (PW2) has stated that when the respondent entered in the house she took her grand son Jitesh and left the house, whereas, other witnesses have stated that Jitesh (PW4) tried to resist therefore, fire was done by Ramveer and therefore a calf was killed. However, no medical examination or post mortem report of the calf was produced to show that it was killed by a gun shot. 11. Under these circumstances, where entire property of the complainant was taken on a Tractor trolly and it is alleged that the respondents No.2 to 8 took one buffalo and one cow then there was no difficulty to the respondents No.2 to 8 to take that calf with them. There was no need to kill a calf by firing. 11. Under these circumstances, where entire property of the complainant was taken on a Tractor trolly and it is alleged that the respondents No.2 to 8 took one buffalo and one cow then there was no difficulty to the respondents No.2 to 8 to take that calf with them. There was no need to kill a calf by firing. Under these circumstances, where complaint has been lodged with a huge delay, there was enmity between the party, no appropriate steps were taken by the complainant soon after the incident and the police found that no such offence is made out against the respondents No.2 to 8, under these circumstances, possibility cannot be ruled out that due to enmity, a false case has been filed against the respondents No.2 to 8. If respondents No.2 to 8 entered into the house of the complainant to commit the aforesaid offence or to take revenge or they were armed with gun, ballam, sabbal and sticks then no one could save Jitesh the son of the complainant and it is even surprising that no scratch was found on the person of the Jitesh. 12. Under these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly found that the complaint was not actual and it was filed only to take revenge from the respondents No.2 to 8. Consequently, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint under section 203 of CrPC filed by the complainant – applicant. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 8 have placed reliance upon the order passed by Single Bench of this Court in the case of “Ramdeen and others v. Smt. Suman Tyagi and another” [ 2010(2) JLJ 158 ], in which it is held that if it is found that the complaint was filed only to take revenge and it was not duly established that such incident was caused then dismissal of the complaint was appropriate. 14. In the light of aforesaid order passed by the Single Bench of this Court and the evidence as discussed above there is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the complaint under section 203 of CrPC. There is no reason to invoke revisionary powers of this Court in favour of the applicant Sumarni Devi. 15. Consequently, this criminal revision filed by the applicant Sumarni Devi is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 16. There is no reason to invoke revisionary powers of this Court in favour of the applicant Sumarni Devi. 15. Consequently, this criminal revision filed by the applicant Sumarni Devi is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 16. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.