Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 608 (MP)

Mirza Fahim Beg v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2018-07-10

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2018
JUDGMENT : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 16/05/2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sehora in Criminal Revision No.360/2013, whereby learned ASJ rejected the applicants' revision and affirmed the order dated 29/09/2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sehora in Criminal Case No.1782/2012, whereby learned JMFC framed the charge against the applicants for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of this petition are that on 05/08/2012 complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a report against the applicants at Police Station Sehora averring that her marriage was solemnized with applicant No.1 Mirza Fahim Beg on 14/05/2011 as per Mohammedan Law. The applicant No.1, husband of the complainant is employed in the Indian Army on the post of Craftsman. Presently, he is posted in 31st R & Flight Regiment C/o 56 APO, Jalandhar in the State of Punjab & Haryana. It was alleged that after one month of solemnization of the marriage applicant No.1 started harassing her by demanding dowry. Six months before to this complaint she had also made a complaint, which was compromised at Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, Jabalpur. Thereafter, applicant No.1 took the complainant to Jalandhar, where he was posted. It was alleged that on 27/07/2012 at Jalandhar applicant No.1 beat the complainant and also burnt both of her hands. On 02/08/2012 applicant No.1 brought the complainant to her matrimonial house at Sehora, where applicant No.1 again harassed her and demanded dowry and also beat her. Thereafter, applicant No.1 dropped her at Jabalpur station stating that she would be allowed to live with him only when she will bring one car and cash Rs. 2,00,000/-. On the report Police registered Crime No.778/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. After investigation, Police filed chargesheet against the applicants before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sehora, upon which Criminal Case No.1782/2012 was registered. Vide order dated 29/09/2013 learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class framed charge against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the IPC. Against which applicants filed revision petition before the revisional Court, which was registered as Cr.R.No.360/2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 16/05/2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sehora. Being aggrieved by the said order applicants have preferred this petition. 3. Against which applicants filed revision petition before the revisional Court, which was registered as Cr.R.No.360/2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 16/05/2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sehora. Being aggrieved by the said order applicants have preferred this petition. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that in the FIR there are no allegations against the applicants No. 2 to 9. Although, in the case diary statement of the complainant recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. it is mentioned that applicant Nos. 2 to 9 also harassed the complainant. But that allegations are afterthought, had applicants no.2 to 9 also harassed her than she would have mentioned that fact in the FIR also. Which clearly shows that complainant/respondent No.2 lavelled false allegations against them in her case diary statement only to harass them, which can not be believed. Applicant No.7 to 9 live separately at Jabalpur, which also show that complainant falsely implicated them in the crime. Learned trial Court without appreciating these facts wrongly framed charge against the applicant Nos. 2 to 9. 4. On the other hand learned counsels for the State and respondent No.2/complainant submitted that although in the FIR no allegations against applicant No.2 to 9 are mentioned, but in the case diary statement of the complainant which was recorded by the Police next day of lodging FIR it is mentioned that applicant No.2 to 9 also harassed the complainant. At the stage of charge only it has to be seen that whether from the charge-sheet prima facie offence is made out against the accused persons or not and for framing of charge whole charge-sheet should be seen. At the stage of framing of charge after evaluating the evidence on merit it cannot be ascertain that whether the allegation levelled by the complainant against applicant No.2 to 9 in her case diary statement is true or false. In the case diary statement complainant has clearly stated the role of applicant Nos. 2 to 9 and at the stage of framing of charge whole charge-sheet should be seen, so the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC against the applicants. Even otherwise, the statement of the complainant has been recorded by the trial Court during trial of the case, so no question arises for quashing of the charge-sheet. Even otherwise, the statement of the complainant has been recorded by the trial Court during trial of the case, so no question arises for quashing of the charge-sheet. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. This Court has gone through the record and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 after considering our earlier judgments held as under :- On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:- (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Section 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 7. Which shows that if on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge. Even on the basis of grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court can frame the charge. 8. On the basis of above guideline if we examine the instant case, it appears from the record that although, in the FIR, which was lodged on 05/08/2012 the complainant/respondent No.2 did not allege any fact against the applicant Nos. 2 to 9, but in her case diary statement recorded by the Police next day of the FIR i.e. 06/08/2012 the complainant has clearly mentioned that soon after the marriage her husband Mirza Fahim Beg, mother-in-law Farzana Begum, father-in-law Mirza Naim Beg and brother-in-law Alim Beg demanded one car and Rs. 2,00,000/-. Against this, she lodged the complaint at Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Jabalpur. Thereafter, applicant No.1 Mirza Fahim Beg, mother-in-law Farzana Begum, father-in-law Mirza Naim Beg and brother-in-law Amzad Khan took her from her paternal house to Sehora, where she lived with applicants for 10 days. During these days applicants beat her for two times and her sister-in-law Ku. 2,00,000/-. Against this, she lodged the complaint at Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Jabalpur. Thereafter, applicant No.1 Mirza Fahim Beg, mother-in-law Farzana Begum, father-in-law Mirza Naim Beg and brother-in-law Amzad Khan took her from her paternal house to Sehora, where she lived with applicants for 10 days. During these days applicants beat her for two times and her sister-in-law Ku. Gajala Parvin also beat her and burnt her hands and legs by pouring boiled oil. It was alleged that her husband, mother-in-law Farzana Begum, father-in-law Mirza Naim Beg, brother-in-law Mirza Saleem Beg and Sister-in-law Ku. Gajla Parvin used to harass her. In this regard also she made complaint at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Jabalpur. It is also mentioned in the case diary statement of the complainant that applicant no.7 Amzad Khan used to ask applicant No. 1 to beat her. Her statement is also corroborated by the statement of Smt. Taniza Begum mother of the complainant and Ku. Yasmin sister of the complainant. 9. At the stage charge only it has to be seen that whether from the charge-sheet prima facie offence is made out against the accused persons or not and for framing of charge whole chargesheet should be seen. At the stage of framing of charge after evaluating the evidence on merit it cannot be ascertain that whether the allegation levelled by the complainant against applicant No.2 to 9 in her case diary statement is true or false. In the case diary statement complainant has clearly stated the role of applicant Nos. 2 to 9. From the case diary statement of the complainant prima facie offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is clearly made out against all the applicants. 10. So, in the considered opinion of this Court learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC against the applicants. 11. Hence, petition is rejected. 12. Applicants are at liberty to raise all the objections before the trial Court at appropriate stage.