Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sameer Kumar Sharma vs Shankarlal Rangwani on 4 August, 2014
MCRC.6287.2009. 1
Sameer Kumar Sharma Vs. Shankarlal Rangwani and
Others.
4.8.2014.
Petitioner Sameer Kumar Sharma is present in
person himself.
Respondents no.1 to 3 by Shri R.K.Sharma
Advocate.
Respondent/state by Ku. Nutan Saxena Public Prosecutor.
1. Heard on admission.
2. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order date 23.5.2009 passed by the court XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Cr.Revision No.160 of 2009 affirming the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the court of JMFC, Gwalior in Cr.Case No.10771 of 2006 rejecting the private complaint of petitioner under Section 203 of Cr.P.C filed against the respondents no.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 and 120 of IPC.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision are that on a FIR lodged by respondent no.2, Crime No.436 of 2006 was registered at PS Janakganj Gwalior against the petitioner along with two others for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506B and 34 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested. His bail application was opposed by respondent no.1 on 13th July, 2006 by filing affidavit on wrong facts before JMFC, Gwalior to the effect that the MCRC.6287.2009. 2 injured Sunil sustaiend injury on his head which had to be fractured with 20 stitches and that injured Renu sustained such injury on her head requiring 10 stitches. On the basis of this wrong affidavit, bail application of petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner moved bail application before the sessions Court which was also opposed by the respondent no.1 on the same wrong facts adding a new one to the effect that Smt. Renu is under treatment in Neurology department. On account of this false affidavit, bail application of petitioner was adjourned by the learned Special Sessions Judge for next date vide its order dated 17th July, 2006. Alleging the above facts, one private complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondents no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 195, 196, 197, 199 and 200 of IPC read with section 340 of Cr.P.C which was rejected by JMFC, vide order dated 11th December, 2006. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court in Cr.Revision No.45 of 2007 which was also rejected vide order dated 1st May, 2007. The said order of revisional court was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in M.Cr.C.No.3169 of 2007 which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.3.2008 by a bench of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh private complaint against the respondents no.1 to 3 before JMFC, Gwalior on the same facts and allegations made in the earlier MCRC.6287.2009. 3 complaint for the offences as stated herein above.
4. Learned trial Court on basis of the private complaint, recorded the statements of petitioner himself and Manju Shivhare under section 200 of Cr.P.C. The statements of other witnesses namely Shanta Sharma (AW1), Dr. Pankaj Yadav (AW2), Dr. Yogendra Pradhan (AW3), Dr. Swati Agrawal (AW4) and Dr. S.N.Ayangar (AW5) were also recorded. Thereafter, considering these statements and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned JMFC rejected the said complaint vide order dasted 8.4.2009. The said order of JMFC was challenged before the revisional Court which was also dismissed by the learned revisional vide impugned order affirming the order of trial Court. Hence, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner herein before this Court.
5. The petitioner submits that learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court both have committed error in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner by not taking cognizance against the respondents whereas, sufficient evidence was produced by him for the same. Petitioner further placing reliance upon the judgment in Poonam Chand Jain Vs. Fajlu (2010) 2 SCC 631 contends that the second complaint on the basis of same facts is maintainable in exceptional circumstances. The petitioner further pleads that in the instant case, the earlier complaint was rejected by trial court under Section 203 of Cr.P.C on MCRC.6287.2009. 4 the ground that there was not sufficient evidence on record for taking cognizance as the statements of all the witnesses were not got recorded by the petitioner. However, in the subsequent complaint, he got the statements of seven witnesses recorded before the trial court. Nonetheless, the learned trial court did not properly consider the statements of witnesses for taking cognizance of the alleged offences. The petitioner has further placed reliance upon Vishnu Agarwal Vs. State of UP and Another 2011 Volume 3 MPWN SN 126 and requested that the impugned order as well as trial court's order be set-aside directing the trial court for taking cognizance against the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submissions has submitted that the second criminal complaint filed by the petitioner on the same facts with the same allegations was not maintainable as the earlier complaint was rejected by learned trial court under Section 203 of Cr.P.C after considering the merit of the evidence produced by the petitioner. The said order was confirmed by the revisional court as well as by this court in M.Cr.C.No.3169 of 2007. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has filed the second criminal complaint before the trial court suppressing the facts of the earlier complaint. The act of the petitioner comes under the purview of contempt of courts for which, he should be punished and fined heavily. Learned counsel further MCRC.6287.2009. 5 submits that the petitioner is unnecessarily pressurizing respondent no.2 owing to which, he is not able to depose his statement against the petitioner and co-accused persons who are being tried in a criminal case for which a report was lodged by the respondents. Learned counsel further pleads that cognizance under section 192 and 193 of I.P.C cannot be taken by the trial court unless a complaint is filed by the court concerned where alleged affidavits were filed by the respondents opposing the bail applications of the petitioner by the respondents. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly concluded that the cognizance is barred under Section 195 of Cr.P.C as the complaint for taking cognizance under Section 192 and 193 of IPC was not filed by the competent court or public authority. The counsel further argued that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case to warrant the maintainability of second complaint filed by the petitioner. On the aforesaid grounds, counsel prayed for rejection of this petition.
5. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner earlier filed a criminal complaint on 11.9.2006 (annexure A/1) before the court of JMFC Gwalior under Section 193, 195, 196, 197, 199 and 200 of IPC and Section 340 of Cr.P.C on the basis of the same facts and with same allegations. The statements of complainant's witnesses were got recorded under Section 200 and 202 of MCRC.6287.2009. 6 Cr.P.C. After considering the merit of the case, learned JMFC passed the order dated 11.12.2006 annexure A/2 and rejected the said complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C having discussed the evidence elaborately and without taking cognizance against the respondents as no offence was made out against them. The petitioner filed a criminal revision bearing No.45 of 2007 before the court of IV ASJ, Gwalior where from the revision was dismissed vide order dated 1.5.2007 confirming the order of trial Court. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C bearing M.Cr.C.No.3169 of 2007 was filed, which was decided by this court vide order dated 7.3.2008 and dismissed affirming the order of the revisional court as well as the trial court. It is also evident from the order dated 7.3.2008 that this Court has considered meticulously the facts of the case as well as evidence produced on record and held that the facts stated in the affidavits are not found false as under :
"That apart, on perusal of a copy of the case sheet of the hospital dated 13th July, 2006, it appears that on 12th July, 2006, injured Renu was admitted in Neurology department of J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior and she was discharged on 13th July, 2006. On this ground, the fact that on 13th July, 2006, she was admitted does not appear false. On perusal of X-ray report dated 17th July, 2006 of injured Kaushalya, it appears that she sustained fraacture in ulna left side. On perusal of the medical report of injured Sunil and Renu dated 12th July, 2006, it apepars that Sunil sustained lacerated wound at his occipital bone for which, x-ray was advised and Renu sustained lacerated wound at her head and swelling over nose. Both the injuries were referred for x-ray dated 12th July, 2006.MCRC.6287.2009. 7
Vide x-ray report of Kaushalya of the same date, it appears that she sustained three injuries and two injuries were referred for x-ray. Seema was also sustained one injury. There is no evidence on record as to whether, any of the injuries sustained by the injured person, got stitched or not?. It was the duty of the complainant to clarify this fact by examining the concerned doctor. In view of this fact, it cannot be admitted that the facts mentioned in the affidavits were false".
In this manner, the order of trial court attained finality. Thereafter in second round, the petitioner again filed a criminal complaint on the basis of the same facts with same allegations before the trial court only altering the offences such as under section 193, 420, 467, 468, 469, 431 and 120B of IPC with Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) and 340 of Cr.P.C suppressing the fact of dismissal of the earlier complaint by the trial court as well as by the High Court. The learned trial court after recording the statement of the witnesses again passed the order 8.4.2009 and rejected the complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C holding that the offences under section 420, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC were not made out as the respondents had not prepared any forged document. The learned trial court further held for the sake of arguments that if the offences under section 191, 192 and 193 of IPC are made out against the respondents, the court concerned before which the alleged affidavits was tendered is only competent to file criminal complaint under section 195 of Cr.P.C without which, the cognizance of the said offences cannot be taken by the court. The said order was MCRC.6287.2009. 8 challenged by the petitioner before the XIV ASJ, Gwalior whereby, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2009 affirming the findings of the trial court.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, at the outset, it is crystal clear that the petitioner filed the second complaint playing fraud with the court as he deliberately suppressed the earlier orders whereby, the complaint on the basis of same facts with same allegations had been dismissed by the court of JMFC up to the High Court. When the earlier complaint was rejected by the competent court under section 203 of Cr.P.C after considering the merit of the case, the subsequent complaint on the same facts cannot be entertained as held by the Hon. Apex Court Poonam Chandra Jain (Supra). It is true that the Hon. Apex Court has held in the aforesaid judgment that in exceptional circumstances, the second complaint may be entertained. However, in this case, no exceptional circumstances have been found for entertaining the second complaint. On the contrary, conduct of the petitioner is totally suspicious as well as malafide which is condemnable.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no need to appreciate the evidence on merit in this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C as the second complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and there appears no error or abuse of the process of law on the part of the court. The order passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional MCRC.6287.2009. 9 court seems to be justified. It would be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed this criminal complaint only to pressurize the respondents so that they would not depose their statements in the criminal case which is pending against the petitioner as well as other co-accused persons on the basis of the FIR lodged by the respondents.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that the petition filed by the petitioner under section 482 of Cr.P.C involves total abuse of process of law. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed.
(M.K.Mudgal) Judge.
Rks.