Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 415 (MP)

Rajneesh Kumar Soni v. State of M. P.

2019-06-17

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2019
ORDER : 1. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 03.09.2013 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Satna, District Satana in Special Case No. 61/2012, whereby learned Special Judge framed charge against applicant/accused Rajnish Kumar Soni alias Mantu for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 294, 506 (Part II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this revision are that on 15.06.2011 complainant Ashok Dhurve lodged FIR at Police Station Baraundha District Satna averring that the co accused Abdul Rashid contractor and applicant Rajnish Kumar Soni alias Mantu manager of the company Vikas Business India Private Limited took him and other 59 people from their village for Tandupanta collection as labourers. They made complainant and other 59 workers work as bonded labour from 08.05.2011 to 09.05.2011 and did not give wages to them. Whenever they demanded wages from them, they used to force them to work against their will without any wages and made them work as bonded labour. On 04.06.2011, when co-accused Abdul Rashid came to Satna from Bilaspur, he and other 59 workers went to Satna to meet him. When they demanded their wages from Abdul Rashid, he abused him with respect to his caste and also abused other labours. He also threatened not to pay any wages and to get them killed if they did not go. When they requested the applicant, he also abused them. On that Police registered Crime No. 60/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 294, 506 (Part II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against applicant Rajnish Kumar and co-accused Abdul Rashid and investigated the matter. Investigation was conducted by SDOP Baraundha. During investigation he recorded the case diary statement of complainant Ashok Dhurve and other prosecution witnesses and also seized documents (Temporary Naukar Nama) of complainant. He also arrested the applicant. The other co-accused Abdul Rashid was not found, so he filed charge sheet after the investigation against applicant and co-accused Abdul Rashid in his absence before Judicial Magistrate, First Class Satna. Learned JMFC committed the case to the special Judge, Satana. On that Special Case Number, 61/2012 was registered. 3. He also arrested the applicant. The other co-accused Abdul Rashid was not found, so he filed charge sheet after the investigation against applicant and co-accused Abdul Rashid in his absence before Judicial Magistrate, First Class Satna. Learned JMFC committed the case to the special Judge, Satana. On that Special Case Number, 61/2012 was registered. 3. Meanwhile, applicant lodged the complaint against Rambabu Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station, Baraundha to the effect that he demanded bribe from the applicant and when he denied to give him bribe he assaulted him and registered a false criminal case against him. So, on the direction of Inspector General of Police Rewa Zone, Rajesh Pandey the then S.P. AJK, Rewa Range conducted further investigation of the crime. During investigation, he recorded the statements of witness and also collected the documents and after investigation he filed closure report before Special Judge Satana mentioning that from the evidence it appeared that applicant did not pay wages to the complainant and other labours within time so offence against him is made out only under Payment of Wages Act and Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. In this regard, the labour department has already filed charge sheet against them before CJM Satana. No offence under Sections 374, 294, 506 (Part II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the applicant and co-accused Abdul Rashid. Rambabu Yadav, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Baraundha wrongly registered the case against the applicant and co-accused Abdul Rashid and prayed for the closure of the case. 4. Learned special Judge vide order dated 12.08.2013 rejected the prayer of the closure of the case observing that after the filing of charge sheet Police has no right to file a closure report. After filing of charge sheet police can only file additional evidence. However, learned special Judge also observed that the document and other additional evidence filed by the Police along with the closure report, will be considered as the part of the charge sheet. Thereafter vide order dated 03.09.2013 learned Special Judge framed charge against applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 294, 506 (Part II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter vide order dated 03.09.2013 learned Special Judge framed charge against applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 294, 506 (Part II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this revision. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in this case, higher police authorities had directed for further investigation of the crime, as provided under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. On that Rajesh Pandey, the then SP AJK Rewa Range conducted further investigation and found that Rambabu Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station, Baraundha wrongly registered crime against the applicant for an ulterior motive. Learned Special Judge in his order dated 12.08.2013 observed that the document and additional evidence filed by the police along with the closure report will be considered as a part of the charge sheet. But at the time of framing charges learned Special Judge did not consider the documents and additional evidence filed by the police along with the closure report. From the documents (Temporary Naukar Nama) collected by the police during investigation and statements of prosecution witnesses it is apparent that complainant and other labours were hired by the company for labour work @ Rs. 3,000/- per month as wages. They are not the bonded labour. So no offence under Section 374 of the IPC is made out against the applicant from the charge sheet. Learned trial Court also did not consider the fact that complainant was the resident of Maharashtra and not of Madhya Pradesh, so he cannot be considered as a member of Scheduled Tribe Community in M.P. It is further submitted that from the affidavit filed by the complainant himself and the statements of the witnesses it also appears that applicant did not threaten or abuse the complainant and other labourers. Even otherwise for proving the offence under Section 506 of IPC, words used should indicate as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must have felt, as a reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action, but it does not appear from the case diary statements of complainant and other witnesses that they felt, as a reasonable man, that the applicant was going to convert his words in action. It is also not clear from the FIR and case diary statements of complainant and other prosecution witnesses that if any annoyance or criminal intimidation was caused to them. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that likewise in order to constitute an offence under Section 294 of the IPC, the words must be uttered in or near public place. In the present case, from the FIR, case diary statement of complainant and other prosecution witnesses it does not appear that the place where the applicant abused non-applicant was a public place. Therefore, it cannot be said that obscene words were uttered in or near the pub-he place. The exact words uttered by the appellant are not mentioned even in the FIR and in the case diary statement of complainant, in the absence of which it cannot be said that the abuses allegedly used by the appellant were obscene. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of M.P. 1989 MPLJ 657 . He further submitted that the trial court without considering all these facts and without considering the additional evidence produced by the prosecution under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. wrongly framed charge against the applicant. So the impugned order passed by the trial Court be set aside and applicant be discharged. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record against the applicant to frame the charges against him. So, learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing charges against applicant and pray for rejection of me revision. 8. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsels of both the parties. 9. Regarding considering the additional charge-sheet/closure report the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : 2013 AIR SCW 220, observed as thus:- “To provide fair, proper and unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency and the court in its supervisory capacity is required to ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under the orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report. Further investigation conducted under the orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code. Both these reports have to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the court would be expected to apply its mind to determine whether there exist grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence. If the answer is in the negative, on the basis of these reports, the court shall discharge an accused in compliance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Code.” 10. It appears from the record that learned Special Judge without considering the documents and evidence produced by the Police along with the closure report and the points as raised by the learned counsel of the appellants before this Court, framed charges against the applicant. So without going into the merits of the case the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.09.2013 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Satna, District Satana in Special Case No. 61/2012, whereby learned Special Judge framed charge against applicant/accused Rajnish Kumar Soni alias Mantu for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 294, 506 (Part II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside and learned trial court is directed to again pass a reasoned order regarding framing of charges against applicant, after considering the entire record and after hearing both the parties. 11. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.