Matadin Shivhare vs K.N. Thapak

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 4.1.2008 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Dakaiti Act) Morena in unregistered complaint Criminal Case No. /2007 (Special) whereby, the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant against the accused was rejected u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 Morena u/s 323, 327, 294, 342 and 506B of IPC against the accused to the effect that the complainant was conductor on the Bus bearing No. 06-P-0134 and when the bus was going to Morena on 6.3.2007 at about 11.00 AM, the accused who was RTO Morena got the bus stopped near Morena Toll Tax Barrier along with three armed escorts and surrounded the complainant. They hurled filthy abuses at the complainant and demanded illegal gratification and when complainant asked them to have a talk with the bus owner, they forcibly took Rs. 1050/- of that day''s booking from his pocket and warned him to tell the bus owner that if he wants to ply the bus on the route, he will have to pay Rs. 2000/- per month for each bus. According to the complaint, the matter was orally reported to the police at Police Station Civil Line Morena but since the report was not lodged by the police, private complaint has been filed in the Court of Special Judge, MPDVPK Act Morena. The complainant got his statement and the statements of witnesses Satyendra Singh, Neelam Singh Tomar and Kedar Singh Sikarwar recorded u/s 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C.

On the basis of the statements of witnesses, learned Special Judge called the report from police Morena in which, objections were also submitted by the respondent. Learned Special Judge Morena considering the police report and objection of the respondent, 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 procedure adopted by the learned trial court is contrary to law as the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, owing to which, the police report ought not to have been called u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. In his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in Anil Saran Vs. State of Bihar and another, . He further contends that the statements of the witnesses record during inquiry u/s 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. were not considered properly by the learned trial Court. Hence, the impugned order being not based on proper reasonings, deserves to be set-aside and the case be remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire case is based on false and fabricated facts as the respondent K.N. Thapak was RTO of Chambal Division and on the date of alleged incident i.e. 6.3.2007, a meeting was convened by the Commissioner Chambal Division regarding issuance of permit, so the respondent was attending the meeting from 10.30 AM to 4.30 P.M. before Commissioner. All the witnesses produced by the complainant are bus owners. They could not get permits of their choice owing to which, they were annoyed with the respondent and consequently, the false complaint was got produced by the bus owners Sayendra Singh Parmar (PW2), Neelam Singh Tomar (PW3) and Kedar Singh Sikarwar (PW4) with the connivance of complainant Matadin Shivhare who was not the conductor on the bus as alleged in the complaint, on the other hand, he was engaged in the liquor shop. Respondent''s counsel further submits that the procedure adopted by learned trial court is appropriate as the offences are not exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The Special Court was exercising the power of Magistrate being a Special Judge under the MPDVPK Act. u/s 202 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court was empowered to call the report from the police and after inquiry, the police submitted a report that the alleged incident is totally false. The respondent was not present at the scene of occurrence. On the other hand, the meeting was convened by Commissioner, Chambal Division on that date. The police has further submitted that the bus owners Sayendra Singh Parmar (PW2), Neelam Singh Tomar (PW3) and Kedar Singh Sikarwar (PW4) could not get permit as per their choice, consequently, they have falsely deposed their statements against the respondent.

The arguments were considered.

On perusal of record, it becomes clear that the complaint was filed u/s 323, 327, 294, 342 and 506B of IPC before the learned trial Court which was notified as Special Judge under MPDVPK Act. Looking to the offences, it is evident that the offences are not exclusively triable by the Court of session. Therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any mistake in calling the report u/s 202 of Cr.P.C.

The police collected the documents and recorded the statements of witnesses during inquiry. On perusal of the documents, it is apparent that a meeting was convened by the Commissioner, Chambal Division about the permit route on 6.3.2012. The bus owner Sayendra Singh Parmar (PW2) and Kedar Singh Sikarwar (PW4) and others submitted their objection on 6.3.2007 at 11.45 A.M. before the respondent for staying the meeting. As per their version, the meeting was convened as per fixed schedule and their objection was not accepted by the respondent. Thereafter, this complaint was filed on 28.3.2007. All the offences mentioned in the complaint are cognizable despite that, no report was lodged by the complainant at the concerned Police Station. If a report was not received by the concerned Police Station u/s 154(1) of Cr.P.C., the report u/s 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been sent to the superior authority but he did not do so. The said facts lead to the conclusion that actually, no incident happened as alleged in the complaint.

From the said facts, it appears that this complaint has been made falsely by the complainant in connivance with the bus owner Sayendra Singh Parmar (PW2) and Kedar Singh Sikarwar (PW4) and others as contended by the respondent''s counsel. The complainant has claimed himself to be a conductor on the bus bearing No. M.P. 06 P 0134. As per the time schedule of the said bus, it could not have arrived at the spot in question at 11 A.M. This fact has also been considered in the police report. Besides, the statement of bus owner was not got recorded to corroborate the fact that the complainant was engaged as a conductor on the aforesaid bus. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the recorded evidence, it is concluded that the learned trial Court has not committed any mistake in rejecting the complaint u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. The cited judgment does not help to the petitioner in this case. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.