Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 402 (MP)

Parwati Patel v. State of M. P.

2023-03-23

ANJULI PALO

body2023
ORDER 1. This revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by applicants against order dated 4.12.2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions trial No.140/2021 whereby the application filed by them under section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging from offences under sections 306 & 506 of IPC has been dismissed. 2. As per prosecution case, the complainant lodged a complaint on 13.7.2021 stating that applicants assaulted the deceased as a result of which she committed suicide on 18.7.2021 by mentioning a note on her thigh with dot pen. Consequently, Crime No.428/2021 for offences under sections 306, 506 & 34 of IPC have been registered against the applicants. After investigation chargesheet has been filed in competent Court and as a result thereof Sessions Trial No.140/2021 has been registered. During trial the applicants filed an application (I.A.No.01/2021) under section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them from offences under sections 306 & 506 of IPC by stating that they have not assaulted the deceased on 13.7.2021 and she committed suicide on 18.7.2021, but in between she has not lodged any report against them. The trial Court dismissed said application by impugned order dated 4.12.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants have challenged the impugned order dated 4.12.2021 on the grounds that facts narrated in FIR are cooked up with a view to harass the applicants. Alleged incident of assault was said to have taken place on 13.7.2021, whereas suicide has been committed by deceased on 18.7.2021 and no report was lodged by the deceased between 13.7.2021 and 18.7.2021. The deceased was alive in between for 5 days and the applicants had not abetted her to commit suicide. The note written by the deceased on her thigh was not got examined through hand-writing expert wherefrom it can be ascertained that whether such note was written by the deceased or not. The Court below has failed to appreciate aforesaid aspects of the matter and erroneously passed the impugned order. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Gopal Kaurav and others v. State of M.P., 2014 (2) MPHT 343 in support of his case. 4. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and strongly supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and strongly supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. On the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant that only two-three witnesses are remaining to be examined, this Court had directed to call for the status report of trial from the concerned District & Sessions Judge. In compliance thereof status report dated 7.3.2023 has been produced before this Court indicating that till date evidence of total 12 prosecution witnesses have been recorded, only evidence in respect of 07 prosecution witness still remains to be recorded. It is also stated that further proceeding of the trial have been stayed in compliance of order of this Court dated 3.8.2022. 6. In view of aforesaid status report, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage it is not appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial Court within 03 months from the date of order.