Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 774 (MP)

Krishna Govind Singh Tomar v. State of M. P.

2023-09-14

SANJEEV KALGAONKAR

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed assailing the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by Shri Vivek Jain, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.), whereby cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 452, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC has been taken against the petitioner and process has been issued in RCT No.453/2021. 2. The petition inter-alia submits that respondent No.2 Anil Singh Tomar filed a complaint under section 200 of CrPC before learned JMFC, Ambah, District Morena on 11.9.2020 inter-alia alleging that on 7.9.2020 around 7:30 PM, accused Pradeep Singh and Pawan Singh started abusing him in filthy language. Accused Madan Mohan Singh and Aditya Singh also joined them. They chased the complainant for assaulting him. He ran and went inside his house. All the accused entered his drawing room and assaulted him with kicks and fists. He suffered injuries. Ajmer Singh and Akhilesh Singh intervened and saved him. The accused threatened to kill him and fled away. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah recorded the statement of complainant Anil Singh under section 200 and statements of witness Ajmer Singh and Akhilesh Singh under section 202 of CrPC. Learned JMFC took cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused for offence punishable under sections 452, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC and directed issuance of process vide order dated 10.3.2021. 4. Feeling aggrieved by aforementioned order dated 10.3.2021, this petition under section 482 of CrPC is filed assailing the impugned order on following grounds:- 1. Petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter. Prosecution story is concocted, fabricated and doubtful. No prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner with regard to alleged offence. 2. Respondent No.2/complainant has reported same incident to Police Station Porsa, District Morena on 7.9.2021. The P.S., Porsa registered intimation with regard to non-cognizable offence on NCR No.347/2020. No allegation was made against the petitioner in NCR No.347/2020. Further, name of petitioner is not mentioned in the complaint and the statement of complainant recorded under section 200 of CrPC as assailant. Therefore, the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District Morena with regard to taking cognizance against the petitioner is perverse and illegal. 5. On such grounds, it is requested that the impugned order with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. 6. Therefore, the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District Morena with regard to taking cognizance against the petitioner is perverse and illegal. 5. On such grounds, it is requested that the impugned order with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards NCR No.347/2020 dated 7.9.2020 wherein the complainant Anil Singh Tomar alleged that around 7:30 PM on same day, Pradeep Singh, Pawan Singh, Madan Mohan Singh and Aditya Singh abused and assaulted him. Learned counsel contends that name of the petitioner is not mentioned in NCR of the same incident for which complaint under section 200 of CrPC was filed before learned JMFC. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court towards the allegation in the complaint and contends that the averments of the complaint also did not mention the name of the petitioner. Further, the statement recorded under Section 200 of CrPC did not mention the petitioner as one of the assailant. It was later added in the statement of witness Ajmer Singh and Akhilesh Singh, recorded under Section 202 of CrPC. Learned counsel contends that name of petitioner is added after premeditation to falsely implicate him, due to previous animosity between the parties. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that although the name of petitioner is not reflected specifically in NCR and complaint, but it was mentioned that all the accused have assaulted the complainant in drawing room of his home. Therefore, learned trial Court has committed no mistake in taking cognizance against the petitioner also. Learned counsel further contends that equally efficacious relief of criminal revision was available to the petitioner, so the petition under section 482 of CrPC is not maintainable. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the order dated 5.9.2016 of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.842 of 2016 (Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) submits that mere availability of alternate relief would not operate as a bar to the exercise inherent jurisdiction by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court. 10. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 11. 10. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 11. Mere perusal of Non Cognizable Offence Information Report (NCR) No.347/2020, the complaint dated 11.9.2020 and the statement of complainant Anil Singh Tomar recorded on 4.2.2021 manifests that there is no allegation of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident. His name was later involved by witness Ajmer Singh and Akhilesh Singh as assailant. Since, the complainant did not allege involvement of petitioner, there was no material on record to proceed against the petitioner. Learned trial Court committed error in directing issuance of process against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 452, 294, 323 and 506 of IPC. The impugned order suffers from patent illegality and impropriety. Trial of the petitioner on the basis of such cognizance order would be abuse of the process of Court. Mere availability of alternate relief of criminal revision would not debar this Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction in case of apparent abuse of the process of Court in view of law laid down in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 13 SCC 317 . 12. Consequently, this petition under section 482 of CrPC is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance dated 10.3.2021 and consequential proceedings under RCT No. 453 of 2021 so far as it relates to the petitioner Krishna Govind Singh Tomar, is quashed. 13. The miscellaneous criminal case is disposed of accordingly.