Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naveen Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 10 September, 2013
M.Cr.C.No.4082/2013
M.Cr.C.No.4082/2013
10.9.2013 Shri A.Usmani, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondent.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, SHO, Police Station Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur is present in person.
SHO Shri Tiwari has informed that he is posted in the month of May, 2013 and therefore, he does not have any knowledge about the investigation done in the year 2006.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants have challenged the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in criminal revision No.111/2007, whereby the revision was dismissed and also challenged the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in criminal case No.3387/2006, whereby the application filed by the applicants was dismissed.
The facts of the case, in short, are that, an information was received by SHO, Police Station Madan Mahal about the crime committed by the applicants. However, it was a non-cognizable offence and therefore, neither the case was registered, nor any investigation was done. On M.Cr.C.No.4082/2013 enquiry, a criminal complaint was filed by the SHO, Police Station Madan Mahal before the competent Court for offence punishable under sections 173, 187 of IPC.
The applicants moved an application that no permission was sought by SHO, Police Station Madan Mahal for investigation in a non-cognizable offence and therefore, the charge-sheet cannot be permitted to continue and therefore, the applicants may be discharged.
The learned JMFC, Jabalpur, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed an order dated 2.3.2007, whereby the application was dismissed. In criminal revision No.111/2007, the learned 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur vide order dated 31.3.2010, dismissed the criminal revision.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, appears to be correct that no investigation can be done in a case, if no permission has been sought from the concerned Magistrate, if investigation is required for a non-cognizable offence. However, it is apparent that an intimation was received by the M.Cr.C.No.4082/2013 SHO, Police Station Madan Mahal about the crime and therefore, he did not make any investigation but, after enquiry, a complaint (Ishtagasha) was filed by the SHO, Police Station Madan Mahal. It could be apparent that no charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court and SHO, Police Station Madan Mahal was entitled to file a criminal complaint as a person aggrieved and therefore, the matter was considered as a criminal complaint and therefore, particulars of offence were prepared and trial proceeded. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the orders passed by the trial Court and the revisionary Court.
So far as the commission of crime under sections 173, 187 of IPC is concerned, it depends upon the factual position and therefore, at present, it cannot be said that aforesaid offences are not made out against the applicants. Hence, no interference can be done by this Court with help of inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants Naveen Gupta and Praveen Gupta is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below alongwith their records for information.
M.Cr.C.No.4082/2013(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra