B.S. Sharma vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the order dated 12.6.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 339/2013 whereby the charge of offence u/s 353 of IPC framed by the JMFC Bhopal (Smt. Archana Raghuvanshi) in Criminal Case No. 24497/2008 was set aside but remaining charges were confirmed.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant had lodged an FIR against the applicant about the quarrel which took place in the chamber of the complainant, and therefore the police of M.P. Nagar Bhopal has registered a crime under Sections 294, 506, 353 of IPC. Vide order dated 17.5.2013 the learned JMFC Bhopal framed all the three charges against the applicant. In Criminal Revision the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal set aside the charge of offence u/s 353 of IPC by confirming the remaining charges. Also it is directed that the trial Court may consider the matter for framing of charge u/s 186 of IPC and other charges, if any.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at present it is a matter of fact that whether the incident took place at a public place or not. The part of the incident took place in the chamber of the complainant and remaining part took place in the courtyard, which was visible in the public in general. It is yet to be proved whether any pass was required to enter in the chamber of the complainant or not, and therefore at present it cannot be said that it was not the public place. Similarly, the abuses which were alleged to be uttered by the applicant whether falls within the ambit of Section 294 of IPC or not is a subject matter of the evidence, and therefore at present it cannot be said that no charge u/s 294 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Similarly, the testimony of the complainant cannot be brushed aside at this stage, who had lodged an FIR that he was threatened by the applicant, and therefore it cannot be said that prima facie the offence u/s 506(2) of IPC shall not be constituted.

There is no reason by which any interference can be done in the order passed by the learned JMFC. However, the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal suffers with infirmity that since no complaint was filed by the complainant separately, no charge u/s 186 of IPC can be framed against the applicant, and therefore that portion of the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal may be set aside.

Under such circumstances, the present petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant B.S. Sharma is hereby dismissed with a direction that para 16 of the order dated 12.6.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal is hereby quashed. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial for the offence under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as the Revisionary Court for information and compliance.