Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahanand Patle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-6107-2018
(MAHANAND PATLE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
JABALPUR
DATED : 27.09.2019
Shri Vasant R. Daniel, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Ritwik Parashar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No.2/complainant.
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants against the order of framing of charges dated 06.12.2018 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. No.127/2018 whereby the charges under Section 195-A r/w Section 34 and 506 of IPC have been framed against the applicants No.1 - Mahanand Patle and the charges under Section 195-A r/w Section 34 of IPC have been framed against the applicant No.2 - Smt. Radhika Patle.
Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the allegation against these applicants are that while the applicant No.1 was in jail, he with the help of applicant No.2 has threatened the complainant by a conference call on mobile. Being aggrieved by the same, an FIR was lodged by the complainant and subsequently the charge sheet was filed and the learned Judge of the Trial Court has framed the charges as aforesaid.
Counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the entire proceeding is vitiated on account of the legal position as under Section 195-A of Cr.P.C. only a complaint can be entertained in respect of an offence committed under Section 195-A of IPC. In support of his contention, the counsel has relied upon the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.3385/2017 (Ratanlal Vs. 2 The State of Madhya Pradesh) as also the order dated 11.09.2014 in M.Cr.C. No.76/2014 (Smt. Lalita Yadav & others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh). Thus, it is submitted that when the FIR in itself could not have been lodged, the order of framing the charges in the same case deserves to be quashed.
Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the charges have been framed after taking cognizance of the FIR.
So far as the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Lalita Yadav (supra) is concerned, this Court while allowing the petition has observed as under :-
"I have gone through the FIR and other facts and circumstances of the case. Section 195-A of the Cr.P.C. reads thus:-
195A. Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening, etc.- A witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
A bare reading of Section 195-A of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a private complaint is necessary for taking the cognizance of the offence under Section 195-A of the IPC but at the same time there is no necessity to file private complaint in respect of the other offences. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Police has mistakenly registered the case under Section 195-A of the IPC and same is liable to be set aside. Other offences are cognizable and triable by the competent Court without any private complaint. In these circumstances, the impugned Crime No.643/2013 is liable to be set aside so far as it relates to Section 195-A of the IPC. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed. Crime No.643/2013, so far as it relates to Section 195-A of the IPC, is hereby set aside, however, the trial of Crime No. 643/2013 shall remain continued with respect to the offences 3 under Sections 341, 294, 506, 147, 323 of the IPC."
Similarly, in the present case also the FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant under Section 195-A r/w Section 34 and other section of IPC and as such the same so far as it relates to Section 195-A r/w Section 34 of IPC is concerned, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Consequently, this revision is partly allowed. Crime No.167/2018, so far as it relates to Section 195-A r/w Section 34 of the IPC, is hereby set aside, however, the trial of Crime No.167/2018 shall remain continued with respect to other offence.
This revision is disposed of.
C.c. as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2019.09.30 17:04:28 +05'30'