Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRR No. 775 of 2023
(ASHOK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-04-2024
Petitioner in person.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
At the outset, the applicant prays for time to argue the revision on merit and submitted that he wants to argue only on IA No.17239/2023, which is an application under section 340 of Cr.P.C for initiation of proceedings under section 195 Cr.P.C for offence under sections 166, 166-A, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 209, 211, 212, 120-B of IPC against Shri Ajay Mishra ACP (crime) and Shri Mukesh Parwal, Public Prosecutor/Government Advocate for deliberately not bringing the evidence and misleading the court and therefore, inquiry should be directed to be made in terms of clause (b) of sub-clause 1 of section 195 of Cr.P.C. After making preliminary inquiry to make a complaint in writing and sent it to Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction for inquiry and to pass an order for sufficient security for the appearance of accused persons before the magistrate and sent the accused in custody to said magistrate.
The other prayer is made that all the submissions made by the applicant in the present application be treated as written statement and Rs.20,00,000/- be awarded to him as cost.
A reply was filed to the present revision petition. Statement was made in para 5 of the reply stating that against 13 accused persons challan has been filed on 14.07.2016, 14.09.2016, 24.07.2017 and finally challan was filed on 17.05.2018.
The applicant on the basis of certain documents obtained under RTI argued that no charge sheet has been filed on 17.05.2018 and false statement was made. Since Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 02-04-2024 18:56:45 2 there was no specific averment in the reply to para 5 of the revision petition in this regard, this Court by order dated 21.02.2024 granted time to the counsel for the state to file additional reply explaining para 5 of the reply of the revision. In compliance to the said order, an explanation has been filed by way of affidavit vide document no.2647 by the respondent. The applicant also filed certain document on 01.04.2024 i.e. yesterday vide document no.3285 bringing certain court orders on record.
It is argued by the applicant that in para 4 of explanation/affidavit dated 11.03.2024, the respondents have admitted that the challan was prepared on 17.05.2018 and the same was filed before the court of law on 25.01.2020. Thus, they have misrepresented the date of filling of the charge sheet which is relevant date. It is also argued that alongwith affidavit/explanation at page no.42 of the charge sheet the total number of enclosures have been shown to be 31 whereas at page 43, which is also a part of the charge sheet, total number of enclosures have been shown to be 56. Thus, there is discrepancies mentioned in the charge sheet.
It is also argued that in the reply it has been stated that the applicant has been made accused on the basis of memo of co-accused and as per the memo Rs.18,00,000/- was given to him by co-accused by transferring the same to his account, which is alleged to be withdrawn by the applicant. The applicant stated that the aforesaid amount was taken by him as loan from co-accused present. He referred document "C" filed alongwith rejoinder which is memo of co-accused Rajkumar who stated that that he had given Rs.18,00,000/- to the applicant as loan. Thus, there was sufficient material to show that the amount given to the applicant was towards loan but the respondents have incorrectly stated in para 6 of the affidavit dated 03.02.2024 that there was no document to show that the amount was given as loan to him. It is also argued that the charge sheet has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 02-04-2024 18:56:45 3 made bulky of 140 pages by attaching irrelevant documents relating to other co-
accused persons and the relevant documents relating to the applicant has been attached alongwith charge sheet of co-accused person. On the basis of aforesaid submission, he prayed for directing that an inquiry under section 340 of Cr.P.C read with section 195 of Cr.P.C against Shri Ajay Mishra ACP (crime) who signed the document and also advocate who is representing the state in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent/state vehemently opposed the application and submits that there is neither any misrepresentation nor any suppression of facts by the respondent. He argued that by affidavit filed in terms of the court order dated 21.02.2024, they have clarified in para no.4 that the charge sheet was prepared on 17.05.2018 and the same was filed before the court of law on 25.1.2020. The date 17.05.2018 was date for preparation of charge sheet. However, due to typographical mistake, it has been mentioned to be date of filling of charge sheet. It is also submitted that the applicant is unnecessarily causing hindrance in the trial and he is in habit of challenging all kind of interlocutory orders passed by the court below. He is filling applications under section 340 of Cr.P.C against the officer in- charge of the case and the counsel whosoever represents state either before the trial court or before the High Court. He has referred para 7 of the reply containing a list of cases to show that till this date as many as 17 cases have been filed by the applicant either before the Apex Court, this High Court or other High Court challenging interlocutory orders including writ petitions. The list is reproduced as under :-
मांक करण मांक न्यायालयीन िनराकरण
माननीय सव च्च न्यायालय
SLP No. (अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
1. Dismissed as
9523/2016 म. . शासन)
आदेश िदनांक 16.12.2016
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 02-04-2024
18:56:45
4
माननीय सव च्च न्यायालय
SLP No.
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
2. M.A. 9523/2016 [cr]
म. . शासन)
1209/19
आदेश िदनांक 17.11.2022
माननीय सव च्च न्यायालय
SLP No.
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
3. M.A. 1045/2021 [cr]
म. . शासन)
1209/19
आदेश िदनांक 14.03.2022
माननीय सव च्च न्यायालय
SLP No.
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
4. M.A. 1755/2022 [cr]
म. . शासन)
406/2022
आदेश िदनांक 17.04.2023
माननीय सव च्च
माननीय सव च्च न्यायालय
िदल्ल ी ारा मान
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
5. SLP No. 8865/2017 न्यायालय मध
म. . शासन)
िनराकरण बाबद
आदेश िदनांक 22.11.2017
माननीय उच्च
खंडपीठ इंदौर
माननीय सव च्च न्यायालय मांक 11898/
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव िदनांक 18.06.2
6. SLP No. 40521/2018
म. . शासन) आरोपी के ारा
आदेश िदनांक 28.01.2019 थी, जसे मानन
न्यायालय ारा
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 02-04-2024
18:56:45
5
माननीय सव च्च
माननीय सव च्च न्यायालय
SLP (cri) No. 1209/2019 ारा आरोपी को ि
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
7. Miscellaneous application no. जारी होने से ट
म. . शासन)
(dy. No. 18696/2020) सम उप थ
आदेश िदनांक 14.03.2022
आदेिशत ि
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
म. . शासन)
M.Cr.C. no. 11898/2018 u/s
8. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
482 Crpc
खण्डपीठ इंदौर
आदेश िदनांक 18.06.2018
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
म. . शासन)
M.Cr.C. no. 6851/2017 u/s
9. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
482 Crpc
खण्डपीठ इंदौर
आदेश िदनांक 05.09.2017
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
म. . शासन)
M.Cr.C. no. 10024/2022 u/s
10. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, Dismissed as
482 Crpc
खण्डपीठ इंदौर
आदेश िदनांक 06.04.2022
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
म. . शासन)
M.Cr.C. no. 49075/2022 u/s
11. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
482 Crpc
खण्डपीठ इंदौर
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 02-04-2024
18:56:45
6
आदेश िदनांक 18.01.2023
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
म. . शासन)
M.Cr.C. no. 7309/2023 u/s
12. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
482 Crpc
खण्डपीठ इंदौर
आदेश िदनांक 24.04.2023
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
म. . शासन)
13. W.P. 10301/2019 माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
खण्डपीठ इंदौर
आदेश िदनांक 26.06.2019
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
खण्डपीठ इंदौर
14. W.P. No. 4171/2023 (अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव Disposed on
म. . शासन)
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
मुम्बई, महाराष्ट
15. W.P. No. 4295/2018 Pending on 2
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
म. . शासन)
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
खण्डपीठ इंदौर
16. CRR 431/2017 (अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव Disposed on 1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 02-04-2024
18:56:45
7
म. . शासन)
आदेश िदनांक 11.09.2017
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,
खण्डपीठ इंदौर Present petiti
17. CRR 775/2023
(अशोक बी नागनगोडर िव
म. . शासन)
He further referred the order passed by the Division Bench in WP NO.10301/2019 passed on 26.06.2019, whereby, the petitioner challenged the registration of FIR and claimed other reliefs alleging violation of his fundamental rights. The said writ petition was dismissed with an observation that the petitioner, if so advised approach trial court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law in case he feels that some evidence which is being used against him or is part of the charge sheet has not been supplied to him in respect of any other grievance as well as for early conclusion of trial. He also referred the order passed by this court in WP No.4171/2023 dated 19.09.2023. He also pointed out that the applicant has committed typographical mistake in his application IA NO.17239/2023. The reply to the affidavit where he claimed exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/-, however, in words he has mentioned Rs.1,00,000/- only. Thus, the applicant may also be held liable to misrepresentation of facts under section 340 of Cr.P.C. He quoted this example to demonstrate that these are typographical mistakes which are cryptic in the reply of the respondent or in the affidavit filed by the applicant himself being human error and they have to be treated to be typographical mistake only.
Signature Not VerifiedIn the light of the aforesaid submission, he prayed for dismissal of the Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 02-04-2024 18:56:45 8 present application with heavy cost.
I have heard applicant and counsel for the respondent/state. So far the contention of the applicant that the respondents have made a false statement before this Court stating that challan was filed on 17.05.2018, the respondents have clarified by filling affidavit dated 09.03.2024 stating that since that on 17.05.2018 the charge sheet was prepared and the same was filed before the court of law on 25.01.2020. Mentioning of dated 17.05.2018 as date of filling of charge sheet (challan) is nothing but typographical mistake and there was no intention to mislead or misrepresent the facts before this Court. Upon perusal of the additional affidavit and record, this court finds that there is no intentional misrepresentation or suppression of fact on the part of the officer incharge of the case or the lawyer who is representing the respondent. The said mistake was only a typographical mistake as applicant has also committed typographical mistake in the prayer clause of the reply to the affidavit. The said mistake is unintentional and does not intend to mislead the court.
So far discrepancies in the number of pages of enclosure of the charge sheet is concerned, the counsel for the state has submitted that in the present case, the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet have been filed in respect of number of accused persons and the respondents have included only relevant pages of the charge sheet alongwith additional affidavit/explanation and therefore in one page of the charge sheet number of enclosures is mentioned as 31 and at page 43 number of enclosure is mentioned as 56. No inference can be drawn with the aforesaid mentioning of number of enclosures that there was any intention to mislead or suppress any facts before this court. Therefore, the contention of the applicant cannot be accepted that the same has been done Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 02-04-2024 18:56:45 9 with an intention to mislead the court or to commit fraud with the court.
The contention regarding difference of amount under enclosures C and D are concerned that the applicant had taken the said amount as loan from co- accused is not relevant for adjudication of this application. The same is a matter of evidence while adjudicating the case on merit by the trial court as the same is the defence of the applicant.
It is relevant to mention here that in the writ petition no.4171/2023, whereby the petitioner has sought number of reliefs, in the said case also, the applicant filed an application under section 195 of Cr.P.C against the officer in- charge of the case and the counsel who was representing the state stating that incomplete charge sheet has been supplied to him. This Court held in para 9 that no case is made out for initiation of proceedings under section 195 as the documents which are filed with the charge sheet has been supplied to the petitioner before this Court.
It is relevant to mention the procedure to initiate the perjury proceedings or proceedings under section 340 of Cr.P.C before concluding the matter.
Section 195 Cr.P.C provides a bar that states that no court will take cognizance of the offences under Sections 193-196 (perjury and its aggravated form) except on the complaint in writing by such court or by an officer authorised by such court. A bare reading of the section would reveal that for the offences of perjury, it would be the court that will be complainant as these offences are against the public justice. Section 340 Cr.P.C. further enumerates the procedure to be followed in respect of the offences mentioned under Section 195 CrPC provides for a bar of taking cognizance of the offences inter alia mentioned under Sections 193-196 IPC. If the court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry may be conducted in respect Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 02-04-2024 18:56:45 10 of the offences as mentioned under Section 195 may order an inquiry and upon conclusion of such inquiry record a finding to this effect and make a complaint in writing. The Supreme Court in Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh reported in 1996 (3) SCC 533 while explaining the scope of the inquiry under Section 340 CrPC observed as under:
"Public justice demands an absolute bar of private prosecution and that power be given to the court to lay complaints under Section 340 of the Code as per the procedure prescribed therein. The object thereby is to protect persons from needless harassment by the prosecution for private vendetta; to preserve the purity of the judicial process and unsullied administration of justice; to prevent the parties from the temptation to pre- empt proceedings pending in a court and to pressure and desist parties from proceeding with the case. The bar of Section 195 is to take cognizance of the offences covered thereunder. The object thereby is to preserve the purity of the administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce evidence in proof of certain documents without being compelled or intimidated to proceed with the judicial process. In this case, the original agreement appears to have been filed in the civil court on 9-2-1984 long after cognizance was taken by the Magistrate."
In light of the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any case for initiation of proceedings under section 340 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, IA No.17239/2023 stands dismissed.
The applicant prays for time to file applications.
List after six weeks.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Sourabh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 02-04-2024 18:56:45