Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1007 (MP)

Ramavtar v. State of M. P.

2018-12-06

ANAND PATHAK

body2018
ORDER 1. With consent heard finally. 2. The present petition under section 482 of the CrPC against the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in Case No.121/2016 RCT and for quashment of the FIR registered against the petitioner for alleged offence under section 188 of the IPC. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is running marriage garden and he is the director of Shiv Utsav Vatika, wherein marriage programmes are held. On 13.1.2016 marriage garden of the petitioner was sealed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate by preparing Panchnama. On 14.1.2016, it is found that marriage garden is again started and found open. Therefore, Panchnama was prepared and FIR was registered in respect of the offences as referred above and the garden was closed down. Later on, it was found again that on 14.1.2017 violation of order of the Hon'ble Court was made and garden was in running condition. Therefore, FIR registered and proceeded with the investigation and charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken exception to the case pending against the petitioner on the ground as contained in section 188 of IPC readwith section 195 of CrPC, wherein certain class of offences have been barred routing though the charge-sheet and only private complaint is the remedy for the officer to proceed against the erring person, who caused violation of section 188 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of C Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 and submits that the case in hand deserves quashment on this pretext alone. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that case can be carried out. He also relied upon the judgment rendered by apex Court in the case of M.Narayandas v.State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2004 SC 555 . 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto and case diary. 7. He also relied upon the judgment rendered by apex Court in the case of M.Narayandas v.State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2004 SC 555 . 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto and case diary. 7. The issue where respondents can initiate proceedings under section 188 of the IPC on the basis of charge-sheet has been decided by the apex Court in the case of C Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and relevant discussion is reproduced for ready reference : "Section 195 (a) (i) of CrPC bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under section 188 of IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The Court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal Courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under section 190 of CrPC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the Court form taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in the CrPC like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that unless some requirements are complied with, the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence described in those sections." 8. Considering the said guidelines and dictum of the apex Court, it appears that the appropriate remedy would have been for the respondents to prefer private complaint and not through the charge-sheet. Trial Court further erred in taking cognizance and framing charge under section 188 of the IPC which could have only be routed through private complaint and not through charge-sheet. 9. Resultantly, proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind and FIR are hereby quashed. Trial Court further erred in taking cognizance and framing charge under section 188 of the IPC which could have only be routed through private complaint and not through charge-sheet. 9. Resultantly, proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind and FIR are hereby quashed. Respondents shall be at liberty to take other course of private complaint in accordance with law, if law permits. Respondents would satisfy the trial Court regarding limitation by moving appropriate application as per law. 10. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.