Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Ps Gwalior ... on 25 October, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
M.Cr.C. No.19533/2017
(Vijay Prakash Vs. State of M.P. and Others)
Gwalior, Dated; 25/10/2018
Petitioner is present in person.
Shri Vivek Bhargav, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1-State.
Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.
With consent, heard finally.
The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22/06/2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior by which the revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and order dated 13/04/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior has been affirmed.
Precisely stated facts of the case for adjudication are that petitioner has preferred a private complaint against respondents No.2 and 3 by levelling various allegations of criminal conspiracy, coercion with the help of police authorities and sought initiation of proceedings against the erring officers as well as respondents No.2 and 3. In the complaint, petitioner has narrated the facts, perusal of which indicates that his wife
-respondent No.3 Smt. Sandhya Verma is working in Defence Research and Development Organization at Varanasi and earlier petitioner was also working as pilot in the Indian Airforce. After solemnization of marriage, due to incompatibility in relationship, after meandering through strenuous course of relationship, divorce decree has been obtained and some of the matters went to High Court, Judicature Allahabad as well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter, matters were settled.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.19533/2017 (Vijay Prakash Vs. State of M.P. and Others) Grievance of the petitioner is that even after the divorce, respondents No.2 and 3 are trying to extract the money from the petitioner and therefore, in connivance with the police authorities they are trying to create false case against the petitioner and trying to falsely implicate the petitioner on false pretext so that the money can be taken from the petitioner. Considering such steps of respondents No.2 and 3, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police on dated 09/12/2015 and many more applications were given in this regard, but no proactive steps have been taken by the police authorities.
It appears that a report was obtained from the SHO, Morar, Gwalior and the said report nowhere found the allegations of the petitioner with any basis or worthy of cognizance. Petitioner-Vijay Prakash also deposed on oath under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in Court and his statements were recorded. After considering the contents of the private complaint, report of the SHO, Police Station Morar and statements recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. of petitioner/ complainant, the trial Court declined to take cognizance and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. It is the conclusion of the trial Court that after considering all these aspects referred above, no prima facie case/basis exists to take cognizance of any offence against the accused persons therefore, complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred a revision against the said order but the revision met the same fate vide impugned order dated 22/06/2017, therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred.
According to the petitioner, domestic relationship marred the future and peace of the petitioner. He was Airforce Pilot and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.19533/2017 (Vijay Prakash Vs. State of M.P. and Others) by hatching a conspiracy, he was removed from the airforce and when he tried to recollect scattered threads of his life, then he was constantly tortured and tornmented by his wife and her father (respondents No.2 and 3). He apprehend that any day they may cause harm to his person, reputation and money therefore, protection is in the interest of justice.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 filed status report in the matter by way of short reply and submits that as per the direction of the trial Court, an enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry report it was found that no harm has been caused by the respondents to the petitioner. A family dispute between the petitioner and his wife led filing of several cases and on these cases police expressed doubt on the present petitioner and his apprehension arises from his mental thought process. Respondents No.2 and 3 are not hatching any conspiracy against him and even if any cognizable cause of action arises in future then his complaint shall be taken care of as per law.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 also expressed the similar submissions and submits that respondents No.2 and 3 are not conspiring against the petitioner. Respondent No.3 is doing her job at Varanasi and she has nothing to do with the petitioner after getting divorce in 2010. Her father is an aged person and is not taking any step to harass the petitioner. All the things are in the mind of the petitioner. He prayed for dismissal of the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.
Petitioner appeared in person and through various factual narratives made an attempt to demonstrate that he is the victim of departmental conspiracy in Indian Airforce as well as in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C. No.19533/2017 (Vijay Prakash Vs. State of M.P. and Others) marital relationship. Since the matter is in respect of inter- personal dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 therefore, all other submissions have no relevance. Since divorce decree has already passed in 2010 and therefore, they are now free individuals. The trial Court has elaborately narrated the factual contours of the controversy and thereafter decided the case and declined to take cognizance. True it is that cognizance cannot be taken only on the basis of apprehension. For that, some tangible set of facts or documents are required. Petitioner's submissions are mere apprehension therefore, trial Court rightly declined to take cognizance.
However, authorities have to keep in mind this fact that any innocent individual be not subjected to harassment through subtle means or cleverly crafted design. Since in present case, no such factual elements exist for treading on different path, resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, petition preferred by the petitioner sans merits and order of the trial Court as well as revisional Court is hereby affirmed and petition is dismissed. However, in case of any eventuality wrapped with cogent facts and material then authorities shall take into account the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
(Anand Pathak) Judge vc VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2018.11.03 12:08:53
-07'00'