Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhinav Chakradhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-4356-2017
(ABHINAV CHAKRADHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
sh
5
e
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-11-2017
ad
Shri Naveen Giri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Pr
Shri Mohit Nayak, learned G.A for the respondent/State.
Heard.
a hy Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by C.J.M, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 13750/2016 which has been ad subsequently affirmed by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision M No. 36/2017, vide order dated 01.02.2017, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
of The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. Allegedly the rt petitioner has cheated thirty five different persons for selling plots and ou houses on different times by different agreements. The victims filed separate complaints before the police station but the police has lodged C the crime about some complaints only. The learned C.J.M by h assigning reasons has directed the police to lodge different crimes and ig after due investigation file charge sheet separately. H The petitioner is challenging the same on various grounds. The important among them are that the learned C.J.M has failed to see that the allegations made in the complaints against the petitioner and co- accused are some and, therefore, there is no reason to file separate charge sheets.
It is also contended that the statements of the complainants have been recorded and charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. As per the provision under Section 219 of the Cr.P.C, only three offences of the same nature committed within a year may be charged together. The trial of more than one offence from the same transaction may be tried at one trial for every such offence as provided under Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. But in the sh present case, the transactions between the victims are different and e different agreements were signed on different dates. Therefore, the ad date and time of offence are completely different, hence, more than three offences cannot be tried together.
Pr In this premises, the present petition sans merit and is, therefore, a dismissed.
hy ad (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE M of rt awinash ou C Digitally signed by AWINASH CHANDRA h Date: 2017.12.01 10:35:19 ig +05'30' H