Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 887 (MP)

Ramlakhan v. State of Madhya Prredesh

2022-07-01

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - IA No.10218 of 2022, an application for taking the additional documents on record is concerned, is allowed and taken on record. 1. The present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC has been filed by the revisionists challenging the impugned order dated 17- 05-2021 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, Morena (MP) in Case No.288 of 2016, whereby the application filed u/S. 319 of CrPC has been allowed and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the revisionists for securing their presence before the Court below. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on the alleged date of incident i.e. 29-03-2006 some altercation took place between complainant and accused party over the dispute regarding grazing of buffaloes and matter was solved by a mediation in the village concerned in the evening. At around 07:00 in the morning of next day, Ramdeen, Ramprakash, Munna and Ramniwas all were talking or discussing each other some matter in front of their house, at that time complainant side Veeru, Guddu, Jitendra, Ravi, Hakim reached there with deadly weapons like lathi and farsa. On the other side, Maharaj, Umesh, Ramlakhan Dhakad came there with 12 bore gun mouser and lathi respectively and abused and they all of them attacked wherein accused Ramlakhan Dhakad caused injury on Ramdeen by means of firearms on the right side of his head. Maharaj Singh also caused firearm on the right knee of Ramprakash and thereafter, Umed Singh also caused injury by means of mouser gun on the right side of head of Ramprakash but the same did not hit anybody. The incident regarding causing fires was made for 12-15 days as a result of which Ramdeen died and a report was lodged at police station vide Crime No.80 of 2006 for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC. Similarly, another dehati nalishi was lodged regarding the incident took place on 29-03-2006 on the same date. It is alleged that from the side of revisionists, they reached on the spot by means of deadly weapons like lathi, mouser, farsa etc. causing injuries to the complainant side whereby Crime No.81 of 2006 has been registered against the revisionists for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC. It is alleged that from the side of revisionists, they reached on the spot by means of deadly weapons like lathi, mouser, farsa etc. causing injuries to the complainant side whereby Crime No.81 of 2006 has been registered against the revisionists for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC. On account of that, after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet and the learned Trial Court took cognizance against the revisionists for offence under Section 319 of CrPC and has issued arrest warrant against them for securing their presence before the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision has been filed. 3. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the revisionists that the revisionists have been falsely implicated and present case is false and concocted as earlier an FIR was registered against the complainant party, therefore, the present FIR has been lodged as a counter- blast. All the witnesses were in inimical terms and there is existence of previous enmity between the parties. The complainant party themselves have caused murder of Kamoda Bai and on the basis of evidence of all eyewitnesses and complainant party, no case is made out against revisionists. The trial Court has committed an error in taking cognizance against the revisionists. In support of contention, learned senior counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Saraba Reedy vs. Puthur Rami Reddy and Ors. 2007(2) CAR (SC) 51 as well as order passed by this Court in the case of Birbal alias Pappu Dhakad vs. State of MP and Another, order dated 22/03/2022 passed in CRR 1042 of 2016 and the order of this Court passed in the case of Brajendra Singh vs. State of MP reported in 2021 Legal Eagle (MP) 239. It is submitted that the power u/S. 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power which is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of case so warrant. It is further submitted that either for summoning or securing the presence of revisionists or for issuance of process, the learned Court below at the very instance, should have preferred issuing summons or bailable warrants and should refrain from issuing non-bailable arrest warrant. It is further submitted that either for summoning or securing the presence of revisionists or for issuance of process, the learned Court below at the very instance, should have preferred issuing summons or bailable warrants and should refrain from issuing non-bailable arrest warrant. In support of contention, the learned senior counsel for the revisionists has also relied upon judgment passed in the case of Vikas vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 988. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order passed by trial Court is against the settled principle of law and the same deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State as well as the counsel for complainant that the application filed under Section 319 of CrPC is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the evidence which has come on record is sufficient to summon the revisionists and, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed under Section 319 of CrPC. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the documents. 6. Provisions of Section 319 of CrPC read as under:- 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, at the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. xxxxxxxxxx 7. In the present matter, since the Trial Court has found evidence on record against revisionists that they have committed the alleged offence, therefore, considering nature as well as gravity of offence, it is apparent that trial Court has not committed or erred in passing the impugned order and issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. 8. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is couched in widest term which has been interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court that at any stage, this power can be used for ends of justice. 8. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is couched in widest term which has been interpreted by Hon'ble Apex Court that at any stage, this power can be used for ends of justice. In such circumstances, when the trial Court has allowed the application filed under Section 319 of CrPC by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against revisionists for their appearance, in such circumstances, no interference is warranted. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any mistake in allowing the application under Section 319 of CrPC and has also not committed any error in issuing warrant of arrest against revisionists. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17-05-2021 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, Morena (MP) in Case No.288 of 2016 is hereby affirmed. 10. Hence, the revision is hereby Dismissed.