Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lal Singh @ Brajraj Singh vs Arjun Singh on 3 February, 2017
1
MCRC.6358/2013
Lala Singh @ Brajraj Singh
v.
Arjun Singh & anr.
03/02/2017
Shri A.S.Bhadoria, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sandeep Bhadoria, counsel for the respondent
no.1/complainant.
Shri R.D.Agarwal, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.2/State.
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 11/07/2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No.129/2013 by which the order dated 12/04/2013 passed by JMFC, Lahar, District-Bhind in Complaint Case No.176/2013 has been affirmed.
The facts of the case in short are that a criminal complaint has been filed by the respondent no.1 against the applicant on the allegation that on 09/11/2011, he was coming alongwith his father on his motorcycle. His mother Gita Devi and his cousin sister Ku. Radha were also the pillion riders. At about 1:00PM, when they reached near Bhind-Lahar Road, at that time his father stopped the motorcycle and the complainant and the other pillion riders were standing by the side of the road. At that time, the applicant, by driving the tractor rashly and negligently, came from the side of Bhind and dashed the motorcycle and the persons who were standing by the side of the motorcycle as a result of which, the father of the complainant died on the spot and his mother died on the way to Bhind city.
It is further stated that the complainant had 2 MCRC.6358/2013 suffered several injuries including the fracture and his cousin sister Ku. Radha also suffered various injuries. It was also mentioned in the complaint that on 18/11/2011, the applicant came to the house of the complainant and offered that the matter may be compromised. At that time, the complainant came to know the names of the accused persons. It is alleged that the applicant also disclosed that the registered owner of the tractor is Rustom Singh from whom his grand father Ramswaroop Singh has purchased the tractor and since the registered owner and the grand father had already expired, therefore, the applicant is the owner of the tractor.
The complaint with regard to the accident was made to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind on 21/2/2012 by Kamlesh Singh Tomar, uncle of the complainant as well as a written complaint was sent to Inspector General, Gwalior on 28/03/2012 but since no action has been taken by the police, therefore, the complaint was filed.
It is submitted by the applicant that he has been falsely implicated. The applicant has placed a report of SDO(P), Lahar, District-Bhind dated 24/03/2012 on record which is addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bhind. By pointing out from this report, applicant submitted that, from the date of the incident, the complainant was changing his version and, initially, he had alleged that the accident took place with the tractor of one Kallu Singh, thereafter, he said that the accident 3 MCRC.6358/2013 was caused by the tractor belonging to Ramroop Singh and now he has alleged that the accident has been caused by the tractor belonging to one Haribabu Singh. He also submitted that as two persons have died in a road accident caused by an unknown vehicle, therefore, in order to get claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, the complainant somehow wants to falsely implicate a vehicle owner.
The applicant also relied upon the report submitted by the SHO, Police Station, Ron, District-Bhind which was filed before the Court of JMFC, Lahar, Bhind. In this report also, it was mentioned that as the complainant was changing the name of the owner of the tractor from time to time, therefore, the FIR was not lodged.
Thus, it is the contention of the applicant that after considering the entire material available on record, it is clear that the Magistrate has wrongly taken cognizance against the applicant.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the applicant has not appeared before the Trial Court. There is prima facie evidence available against the applicant on record to show that the accident was caused by the applicant. The complaint is supported by the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Sections 200,202 of CrPC. Meticulous appreciation of evidence, at the stage of taking cognizance, is not permissible and prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and 4 MCRC.6358/2013 perused the documents available on record.
It is clearly conceeded by the counsel for the applicant that applicant has not appeared before the Court of Magistrate so far.
So far as the grounds which have been raised by the applicant is concerned, he will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, when the statements of the witnesses will be recorded under Section 244 of CrPC.
By pointing out the previous conduct of the complainant in disclosing the different names of the owners of the tractor, the applicant can argue the matter before the Magistrate at the time of framing of charges. The applicant would be entitled to argue before the Magistrate under Section 245 of CrPC that even accepting the entire allegations which have come on record, no case is made out.
Under these circumstances, in the light of the complaint as well as the statements recorded by the Court below under Sections 200,202 of CrPC and the report submitted by the police coupled with the fact that the applicant has not entered his appearance before the Magistrate so far, this Court is of the view that all the objections, which have been raised by the applicant in the present case, can be raised by him at appropriate stage before the Magistrate.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed off.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
AKS Judge