R.K.Marmat & Anr vs State Of Mp & Ors

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 11.5.2019 passed by Third

Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 32/2019, FIR contained in Annexure P-4 as well as entire consequential proceedings

pending before JMFC, Morena, in the private complaint filed by the respondent No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 201, 506-B,

120-B of IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3/complainant filed a private complaint under Sections 302/34, 201, 506-B and 120-B of IPC

before JMFC, Morena alleging that her husband late Harjeet Kushwaha was posted as Labour and the petitioner No.1 who is residing in Bungalow

No.2, Officers Colony, Morena insists him to perform the work of maid/domestic work like cleaning of the house, washing clothes, boot polish cooking

meat etc.and when he denied, petitioner No.1 uttered filthy language and threatened to remove from service and also get bitten by dog. In the month

of June, 2016 when her husband refused to do these works, the petitioner No.1 get bitten him by dog. On account of aforesaid, the entire body of her

husband was poisoned and festered and the petitioner No.2, in order to conceal the allegations admitted him to hospital showing different ailments and

after some time got discharged from hospital. When his position became vulgar, he was admitted in J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. The complainant was not

aware of his ailment and the petitioner No.2 obtained signature of her son for the purpose of operation of her husband. It is further contended that

5.8.2016 her husband died and postmortem could not be conducted and the petitioner No.2 had taken him in a private vehicle from Gwalior to Morena

and said that SDO Saheb has instructed that funeral be conducted during night otherwise your son would not get job and the petitioner No.2 forcibly

taken away the dead body by Govt. jeep at village Bijouli and the funeral was conducted in mid night at 2-00 PM. When no action was taken on her

complaint, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 26.2.2019 allowed the

application and directed the respondent No.2 to take action on the complaint and after investigation file challan before the Court. Being aggrieved by

the aforesaid, this petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that in pursuance to

the direction, the respondent No.2 without application of mind registered FIR at crime No. 272/2019 for the above referred offence. It is contended

that the complainant first time made complaint before the Superintendent of Police on 2. 11.2018, while her husband died on 5.8.2016, i.e., after more

than two years of death and there is no explanation for lodging the complaint belatedly. The Revisional Court vide Annexure P-1 partly set aside the

order of the Magistrate and the remaining part has been upheld. It is further contended that the Police had not considered the fact that after more than

two years of death the report has been lodged. Even the allegations levelled against the petitioners are accepted, then the offence under section 302

IPC is not made out. It is further contended that there is total abuse of process of law on the part of respondent No.3. It is further contended that in

the enquiry conducted by Executive Engineer, it is found that the husband of the complainant died a natural death. The petitioners have filed

application under the RTI Act for obtaining the medical treatment papers but the same has not been provided.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions and submitted that there is sufficient material available against the

present petitioners to constitute the offence against them under the aforesaid sections, hence requested to reject the petition under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The present case is registered under Section 302 of IPC wherein no any limitation is prescribed under the Code of Criminal procedure. There is

also no any limitation prescribed under Cr.P.C. for filing of challan and the offence is of grievous nature. Whether it is made out or not can only be

decided on the basis of evidence which will be adduced before the trial Court. Therefore, interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the present

case would defeat the purpose of justice.

Consequently, the petition sans substance being devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.