Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3996
1 MCRC-47056-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47056 of 2024
PRAKASH JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamlesh Kumar Kori, Advocate for applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 56/2022 registered at Police Station Sonagir, District Datia for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472 of IPC.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that Radha Sharan Yadav/respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint alleging that certain amount was withdrawn fraudulently by preparing forged muster rolls. In the police inquiry, nothing incriminating was found against the applicant, therefore, the complaint was dismissed by order dated 12/9/2019. Against the said order, a revision was filed, and the Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter by order dated 4/9/2021. Thereafter, the complaint was once again dismissed by the Trial Magistrate. Thereafter, it appears that again the complainant preferred a revision, and the revisional court, by order Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 2/25/2025 6:33:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3996 2 MCRC-47056-2024 dated 9/7/2022, directed the police to register the crime. It is submitted that the coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 11/7/2023 passed in MCRC No. 5341 of 2023 and MCRC No. 57587 of 2022 has quashed the FIR lodged against co-accused persons.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
4. The applicant has relied upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No.5341/2023 and M.Cr.C. No.57587/2022. The coordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the proceedings as well as the FIR on the basis of the order dated 9/7/2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2694 of 2022. The coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Siyasharan Yadav vs. Radhasharan Yadav and others, decided on 11/7/2023 in Criminal Revision No. 2694 of 2022, had passed the following order:-
"This common order shall govern the disposal of both the revisions.
Both the revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 9th July, 2022 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, in Criminal Revision No.23/2022 by which learned revisional Court has directed for registration of crime against the petitioners.
In brief facts of the case are that initially on 11th July, 2016 respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 472 of IPC. Learned Magistrate after taking evidence of complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by order dated 12.9.2019 dismissed the complaint. The complainant preferred a revision against the said order and the Revisional Court by its order dated 4.9.2021 remanded the matter back. Again learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.2.2022 after elaborately discussing the evidence oral and documentary came on record dismissed the complaint of respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, he again preferred revision and the revisional Court by order dated 9th July, 2022 directed the police to register the crime.
Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others vs. V.Narayana Reddy and others, (1976) 3 SCC 252, wherein in para 17 Apex Court has observed as under :-
"Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption: "Information to the Police and their powers to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 2/25/2025 6:33:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3996 3 MCRC-47056-2024 investigate"; while s. 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the heading "Of complaints to Magistrates". The power to order police investigation under s. 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by s. 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre cognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. 'That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under s. 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under s. 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of s. 156(3). It may be noted further that an order made under sub- section (3) of s. 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under s. 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under s. 156 and ends with a report or chargesheet under s. 173. On the other hand s. 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under s. 202 to direct within the limits circumscribed by that section, an investigation "for the purpose of deciding whether or not here is sufficient ground for proceeding ". Thus the object of an investigation under s. 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him."
Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and State supported the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
In the present case, learned Magistrate after taking evidence of complainant and his witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint, and therefore, the direction of learned Revisional Court in revision in the nature of 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing the police to register the FIR, thereby again switching the matter back to the pre-cognizance stage, appears to be erroneous. Accordingly, impugned order dated 9th July, 2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.23/2022 is set aside. Both the revisions are accordingly allowed."
5. From plain reading of the said order, it is clear that neither the facts Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 2/25/2025 6:33:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3996 4 MCRC-47056-2024 of the case were taken into consideration nor the order sheets of the trial court were taken into consideration to conclude that the revisional court had switched over the matter back to the pre-cognizance stage by directing the police to register an FIR. Therefore, before relying on the said order, this Court thought it appropriate to consider the order-sheets of the Trial Magistrate as well as the order of the revisional court.
6. The applicant has neither filed copies of the order sheets of the trial Court nor filed copy of the order passed by the revisional Court. It is not known whether the complaint was dismissed by the Trial Magistrate after elaborately discussing the oral and documentary evidence or not? It is also not known whether the Trial Magistrate had ever taken cognizance or had dismissed the complaint at the pre-cognizance stage. Even assuming that the complaint was dismissed under Section 204 of Cr.P.C after recording statements of witnesses, still, the revisional court had jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and to direct the Magistrate to take cognizance. If the revisional Court was of the view that a prima facie case has been made out pointing out embezzlement of a huge amount on the basis of forged muster rolls, then the person against whom allegations were made cannot be allowed to go scot-free merely on the ground that instead of directing the Magistrate to take cognizance, the revisional Court had directed for registration of FIR.
7. Be that whatever it may be.
8 . Under these circumstances, this Court would like to consider the allegations made in the FIR, for the reason that a copy of the complaint has Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 2/25/2025 6:33:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3996 5 MCRC-47056-2024 not been filed.
9 . It was alleged that by preparing forged muster rolls, even in the name of dead persons, amounts were withdrawn, and it was alleged that muster rolls were not signed by the laborers, but the muster rolls contained forged signatures of the laborers. A muster roll in the name of Smt. Komesh was prepared, whereas the signatures of her husband Prakash were obtained for the simple reason that Smt. Komesh had already expired about 10 years back. Furthermore, the amount was deposited in the account of another person. It was alleged that Prakash had a separate job card and a separate unit. It was further alleged that in muster roll 1027, a road was shown to have been constructed from Bagiya Ghat to the field of Munni Kewat. The amount was deposited in the account of Komal Jatav, whereas the muster roll bears the signatures of Prakash. Multiple examples have been given with regard to the fraudulent withdrawal of amounts by preparing forged muster rolls. The applicant has deliberately suppressed his status in the Gram Panchayat. However, during the course of arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant was a Panchayat Secretary. If an amount has been withdrawn by preparing forged muster rolls, then by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the act of the accused would not be criminal in nature.
10. In the absence of various orders passed by the courts below, either by the Trial Court or by the Revisional Court, and in the absence of any elaborate discussion in the order dated 11/7/2023 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in case No.Cr.R. No.2694/2022, this Court is of the view Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 2/25/2025 6:33:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3996 6 MCRC-47056-2024 that even if the direction to register the FIR was not maintainable, still the revisional court could have directed the Magistrate to take cognizance. The FIR has already been lodged. It is not known whether the charge sheet has been filed or not. The application has been filed in a most vague manner without disclosing material aspects.
11. Accordingly, this application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Rashid Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 2/25/2025 6:33:55 PM