Jagdish vs Tularam and Another

M.K. Mudgal, J.

Heard on admission.

With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard and the record has been perused.

The petitioner-complainant has filed this criminal revision u/s 397 read with section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 17.7.2008 passed by the I Special Additional Sessions Judge Shivpuri in Cr. Case No. /2008 (Special ST) whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant u/s 392, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused was rejected u/s 203 of the Cr.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri u/s 392, 323 and 506 of IPC against the accused to the effect that on 7.10.2007 when complainant went to Chharch Bazar for purchasing articles of daily use, respondent No. 1-accused Tularam Diwan caught and took him to the Police Station where, co-accused-respondent No. 2 O.P. Chandoria was present where both the accused started beating the complainant and threw him on the ground forcibly took Rs. 1000/- from his pocket with the allegation of a complaint having been made by him to the Superintendent of Police against them. They also threatened the complainant of dire consequences in case the complaint is made repeatedly against them. Thereafter, on 10.10.2007, the complainant went to SDOP Pohri''s office for lodging complaint but no action was taken. Even thereafter, the complainant complained to the senior police officers and Collector of the District about the incident but as no action was taken, hence, the said private complaint has been filed in the Court. Learned Special Judge, Shivpuri. The complainant got his statement and the statements of witnesses Suresh Singh Yadav, Girish and Gangavishan recorded u/s 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.

On the basis of the statements of witnesses, learned Special Judge called the report from the police Shivpuri. Learned Special Judge Shivpuri considering the police report and statements of the witnesses, rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant vide impugned order. Hence, feeling aggrieved by the said order, this revision has been submitted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the complaint vide impugned order whereas there was sufficient evidence on record for taking cognizance against the respondents. He has further submitted that the allegations of the complaint have been corroborated by the complainant Jagdish and other witnesses Suresh Singh Yadav, Girish and Ganga Vishan. The said statements have not been considered properly by the court below. Hence, learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned order and the case be remitted to the trial Court for further consideration for the cognizance.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the entire case seems to be false and fabricated as no report was lodged by the complainant neither in the Police Station nor to any superior police officer. The said act indicates that the story put forth by the complainant is not reliable. Apart from this, neither the names of the witnesses nor their presence have been stated in the complaint which indicates that the said witnesses have been falsely prepared for deposing their statements in this case belatedly. Learned Public Prosecutor further alleged that the discretion was properly exercised by the learned trial Court in rejecting the complaint u/s 203 of the Cr.P.C. and no sufficient ground has been found to interfere in the impugned order.

The arguments were considered and the record has been perused.

On perusal of trial Court records, it becomes clear that the alleged incident has been reported to have occurred on 07.10.2007. The offences punishable under Sections 392 and 506B of the I.P.C. mentioned in the complaint are cognizable offences yet no report was lodged at the concerned Police Station. If the report had not been written by the concerned Police Station the report u/s 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. should have been sent to the superior police officers but the complainant did not do so. Hence the said facts indicate that the allegations made in the complaint are suspicious.

The said complaint was filed before the court below on 16.01.2008 after three months of the said incident i.e. 07.10.2007. The cause of filing the complaint with the delay has not been explained in the complaint as to why the prompt action was not taken by the complainant besides neither the names of the witnesses Suresh Singh Yadav, Girish and Gangavishan who have witnessed the incident, have been mentioned in the complaint nor their presence has been shown in the statement of the complainant which was recorded on 20.03.2008.

In view of the facts, it can safely be inferred that the said witnesses have been prepared falsely for deposing their statements in this case.

The matter was got enquired through the Police by the trial Court. The police submitting its report dated 11.02.2008 has stated that the allegations made in the complaint were not found true.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that the learned trial Court after considering the allegations and recorded evidence of the witnesses has not committed any error in rejecting the complaint u/s 203 of the Cr.P.C. When the discretion was duly exercised by the trial Court where the statements of the witnesses were recorded in the presence of the Court, no reason has been found to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Court for setting aside the impugned order. Therefore, the revision petition having no substance is hereby dismissed.