Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2022
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
-( 1 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1718 of 2022
Between:-
1. RAMESHWAR SINGH S/O
LAL SINGH CHOUHAN
KISHANPURA THANA AMBAH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMNARESH SINGH S/O
LAL SINGH KISHANPURA PS
AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MAYADEVI @ ASHADEVI
W/O SHRI RAMESHWAR SINGH
CHAUHAN KISHANPURA PS
AMBAH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.... PETITIONERS
(BY MR. PRADEEP KATARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
-( 2 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION PS AMBAH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAJARAM S/O SHRI
KAMBOD SINGH UDHAR KA
PURA PORSA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
....RESPONDENTS
(MR. RAMADHAR CHOBEY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND MR. PAWAN
VIJAYWARGIYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
Dated : 01.08.2022
This petition coming on for hearing this day, this Court
passed the following:
ORDER
The present revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge Ambah, District Morena in case -( 3 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022 No.191/2013, by which an application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to array the present petitioners as accused was allowed and non-bailable warrants were issued against them.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant/respondent No.2 Rajaram filed Dehati Nalsi and FIR to the effect that his youngest son Narayan (since deceased) was a driver. Talks of marriage of Narayan were going on with Rameshwar Singh, Sukhbir Singh who had visited his house for the same purpose. However, they did not agree for the marriage and warned him to restrain his son Narayan from talking to their daughter Mini. They also threatened to kill Narayan if he does not stop talking to Mini. On 25.01.2013, Narayan left the house with his voter card and driving license. However, he did not return back. On 28.02.2013, Vishnu Singh, S/o complainant informed that Narayan had been murdered. It was further alleged that -( 4 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022 petitioner No.3 Mayadevi, W/o Rameshwar Singh called them on mobile and informed that Narayan had been killed because he refused to obey their instruction.
3. The police registered the case at Crime No.40/2013 under Section 302/34 of IPC. Upon investigation, it was found that the accused persons Raju Dubey, Neelu @ Shailendra, Photu @ Kuldeep were last seen with the deceased Narayan. It was also found that the deceased Narayan was trying to establish illicit relations with the wives of Neelu and Raju Dubey. Therefore, Raju Dubey, Neelu, Photu murdered Narayan. After investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302/34 of IPC was filed against the Raju Dubey, Neelu @ Shailendra, Photu @ Kuldeep.
4. During trial, the complainant-Rajaram filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the present petitioners had committed his son's murder. It was further stated that in spite of his report against the present -( 5 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022 petitioners, the Investigating Officer with a malafide intention and in connivance with the petitioners did not array them as accused.
5. Learned trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by impugned order and issued non- bailable warrants against the present petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order is against the settled principle of law. There is nothing on record to connect the present petitioners with the crime. It is further argued that on the basis of investigation, Raju Dubey, Neelu and Photu have been arrayed as accused persons against whom sufficient evidence is available. It is further argued that learned trial Court has ignored to consider that before taking cognizance under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. there should be sufficient evidence to frame the charges or to convict proposed accused persons for the offence. Therefore, in view of the settled principle of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case -( 6 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022 of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC 92 and Brijendra Singh & others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 Cr.L.R. (SC) 465, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the prayer and argued that the impugned order is in-conformity with the settled principle of law and does not need any interference, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial.
10. In the case of Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh & Anr, AIR 2006 SC 1892, it was held by the Apex Court that a person, -( 7 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022 even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added as an accused to face the trial. The trial court can take the step to add persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence. In the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) it is held that the word 'evidence' used in Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is limited to the evidence recorded during trial.
11. It is well settled that the power to proceed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., against the persons not arraigned as accused is available when degree of satisfaction is available for Court to exercise the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Degree of satisfaction for invoking the Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be of more than a prima facie case as exercised at time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence, if -( 8 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022 not rebutted, may lead to conviction of person sought to be added as accused. Under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. Further, the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extra ordinary and has to be exercised sparingly.
12. In view of the above settled principles while examining this case, it is found that the complainant PW-1 Rajaram in his evidence has only said that the present petitioners did not agree for marriage and threatened to kill his son. PW-2 Vishnu has simply said that after refusing the proposal of marriage Sukhbir/petitioner and his uncle asked the complainant to counsel Narayan against talking to their daughter. Thus it is clear that the FIR against the petitioners was filed only on the basis of apprehension as the petitioners have allegedly threatened the complainant.
13. Except the fact of alleged threatening there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners are involved in the crime. The material available on record shows that in -( 9 )- Cr.R.No.1718/2022 pursuance of memorandum statements of accused Raju Dubey, Neelu @ Shailendra, Photu @ Kuldeep, incriminating articles were seized. On the basis of investigation it was found that accused persons had murdered the deceased. Therefore, charge-sheet has been filed against them. It is apparent from the above that the learned trial court has passed the order only on the basis of apprehension not the evidence.
14. It is clear from the discussion as above that degree of satisfaction for invoking the Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is not present in this case against the present petitioners.
15. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to recall the non-bailable warrants issued against the present petitioners.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE bj/-
BARKH Digitally signed by BARKHA SHARMA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH A GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=3e36b1b2d6eed9536d1b3 SHAR 8ba570a4828b594cc6ef332778d1c7 ede28eab061c3, pseudonym=7368F8C45E320EAB48 9D20DE1465D83541AEB193, serialNumber=A299B1E2B57EB3E79 D641AE7355F675DC1134B3CA8912 MA AA7A3F8AABDF66804A6, cn=BARKHA SHARMA Date: 2022.08.05 17:49:58 +05'30'