Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nageshwar Prasad Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 Cr.R. No.852/2017 &
Cr.R. No.574/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 8th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 852 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
NAGESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA S/O SHRI
JAGANNATH PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT/ CLERK OF THE REGISTRAR
APS UNIVERSITY, R/O ARUN NAGAR WARD
NO.14, P.S. VISHWAVIDYALAYA, REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ASHOK LALWANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA REWA,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SHWETA PANDEY, ICMR-SRF, BIO
TECHNOLOGY DEPARTEMENT, APS
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY, RESEARCH
ASSISTANT, BIO TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, APS VISHWAVIDYALAYA
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE BY SHRI MOHAN
SAUSARKAR - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR
DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 574 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
2 Cr.R. No.852/2017 &
Cr.R. No.574/2017
RAKESH KUMAR CHAUHAN S/O SHRI SUKHLAL
CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PRESENTLY
POSTED AS REGISTRAR, MAHARSHI PANINI
SANSKRIT AVAM VAIDIC VISHWAVIDYALAY,
UJJAIN R/O VILLAGE LEHAKOO P.S. SHAHGAON,
DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(NONE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SHWETA PANDEY, ICMR-SRF, BIO
TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, APS
VISHWAVIDYALAYA REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY, RESEARCH
ASSISTANT, BIO TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, APS VISHWAVIDYALAYA
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE BY SHRI MOHAN
SAUSARKAR - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND
RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR
DUBEY)
............................................................................................................................................
These applications coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Since both the Revisions (Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/2017) arises out of same criminal proceedings, therefore they shall be decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts of Cr.R. No.852/2017 shall be considered.
3 Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/20173. This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dated 19/01/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa in Criminal Case No.1545/2015, by which charges for offence under Sections 354, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC (2 counts) have been framed against the applicant.
4. According to the complainant, she and her husband are working in Awadhesh Pratap Singh University as Research Fellow. Whenever, she asked for payment of Fellowship, Nageshwar Mishra had demanded commission. When she made a complaint against illegal demand, then Nageshwar Mishra started harassing her mentally and also started passing indecent comments. A complaint in that regard was also made to the Registrar on number of occasions but no action was taken. On the date of incident also co-accused Nageshwar Mishra passed indecent comments and went away after keeping the register on his table. When she went to the Chamber of Registrar to make a complaint, then she found that Nageshwar Mishra was also present in his Chamber. When she made a complaint to the applicant, then Registrar insisted that the complainant should not make any complaint and she should leave his Chamber as they do not belong to the said place and the applicant also started misbehaving with her. In the meanwhile, her husband also came inside the Chamber. When he replied that since Registrar is the Administrative Officer and therefore, if the complainant cannot make a complaint to him, then to whom she should make a complaint then the Registrar moved towards the complainant. She was saved by her husband and even Nageshwar Mishra moved towards the complainant and threw her husband on the ground and also started assaulting her. Even she was beaten by Nageshwar Mishra and the Registrar. The 4 Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/2017 phone of her husband was snatched and even the Registrar tried to snatch the phone of the complainant. Accordingly, it was alleged that being a woman she was misbehaved and indecent comments were passed. Whenever, she made a complaint to the Administrative Officer, no action was taken and the situation has worsened to that extent.
5. The Trial Court by order dated 19/01/2017 has framed the charges against the Registrar - Rakesh Kumar Chouhan as well as applicant - Nageshwar Mishra for offence under Sections 354, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC (2 counts).
6. Challenging the order framing charge, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted, still no offence under Sections 354, 323 of IPC would be made out.
7. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that not only the modesty of complainant was outraged by the applicant but she and her husband were beaten by the applicant and co-accused Rakesh Kumar Chouhan. Therefore, Trial Court has not committed any mistake by framing charges.
8. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
9. Before considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference at the stage of framing of charges.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, Bengaluru, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 has held as under :-
"17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 :5 Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/2017
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488]and discern the following principles:
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, "cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial".
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to 6 Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/2017 discharge the accused.
18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar [State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar, (1995) 4 SCC 181 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 664 : AIR 1995 SC 1954] ). The expression, "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 : AIR 2005 SC 359])."
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Soma Chakravarty v. State, through CBI, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 403 has held as under :-
"10. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused 7 Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/2017 committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
* * *
19. Some of the questions, however, which have been raised by the appellant are of some importance and it may be necessary to deal therewith. The learned trial Judge, it appears, did not properly apply its mind in regard to the different categories of the accused while framing charges. It ought to have been done. Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a prima facie finding that there exist some materials therefor. Suspicion cannot alone, without anything more, it is trite, form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 has held as under :-
"39. The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into 8 Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/2017 the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533] where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 CrPC, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial.
40. In a recent judgment delivered in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 decided on 24-4- 2019, this Court has laid down the law relating to framing of charges and discharge, and held that all that is required is that the court must be satisfied with the material available, that a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion is sufficient for framing charges, which must be founded on some material. The material must be such which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged at this stage, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused at the stage of framing charges. The court is not to consider whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused, or whether the trial is sure to end in the conviction."
13. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 198 has held as under :-
"26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC 9 Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/2017 at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
14. Thus it is clear that roving and detailed enquiry into the allegations is not permissible at the stage of framing of charges and if there is grave suspicion to the effect that accused might have committed an offence, then it is sufficient to frame charge against the accused.
15. The complainant as well as her husband have specifically stated that whenever they went for receiving their fellowship, it was not paid by accused persons and applicant Nageshwar Mishra also demanded the commission. When a complaint was made to the co-accused Rakesh Kumar Chouhan, then Nageshwar Mishra started insulting her by passing indecent comments. Even on the date of incident, Nageshwar Mishra after passing indecent comments left his table by leaving the register on his table. When she went to the Chamber of co-accused Rakesh Kumar Chouhan, then he insisted that the complainant should not make any complaint and she should leave his Chamber as they do not belong to the said place and the applicant also started misbehaving with her. In the meanwhile, her husband also came inside the Chamber.
10 Cr.R. No.852/2017 & Cr.R. No.574/2017When he replied that the applicant - Rakesh Kumar Chauhan is the Administrative Officer and if the complainant cannot make a complaint to him, then to whom she should make a complaint then the Registrar moved towards the complainant, then she was saved by her husband and even Nageshwar Mishra moved towards the complainant and threw her husband on the ground and also started assaulting her. Even she was beaten by Nageshwar Mishra and Rakesh Kumar Chouhan. The phone of her husband was snatched and even the applicant tried to snatch the phone of the complainant. Accordingly, it was alleged that being a woman she was misbehaved and indecent comments were passed. Whenever, she made a complaint to the Administrative Officer, no action was taken and the situation has worsened to that extent.
16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that if the allegations made against the applicant and co-accused Rakesh Kumar Chauhan are taken on their face value, then this Court is of considered opinion that there is a prima facie material warranting framing of charge for offence under Sections 354, 323/34 of IPC (2 counts).
17. As no case is made out warranting interference, accordingly, both the Criminal Revisions fail and are hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.05.10 14:49:32 +05'30'