Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Vasudev vs Vikky Sharma on 17 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41191
JBP:41191
1 M.Cr.C. No.
No.8579/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S.
G AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS
ELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 8579 of 2024
RAJESH VASUDEV
Versus
VIKKY SHARMA AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Teekaram Tanturay - Advocate for the applicant.
.............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following relief(s):-
relief(s):
"Itt is therefore prayed before the Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 29/11/23 as Annexure A/2 and Pass the order to registered the complain case."
case.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the wife of the applicant has been abducted ed by the respondents. It was alleged that on 20/06/2021 the respondents had ha passed indecent comments against his wife. They used to take his wife along along with them to unknown places and whenever henever the complainant had ha objected, he was beaten. On 18/07/2021, respondents have forcibly taken away his wife and this was done in absence of the applicant. When he came back, then he was informed by the neighbourers. Thereafter he tried to search out his wife. In the meanwhile, complaint/ applicant applicant received telephonic call from Vikky NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41191 JBP:41191 2 M.Cr.C. No. No.8579/2024 Sharma/ respondent No.1 by which he informed that the wife of the applicant has been abducted by them and every day they are having physical relationship with her. His wife has been sold by SHO Police Station Ashokagarden arden for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ Rs.2,00,000/- and now he should forget about his wife and they would keep her as their keep and later on, she would be thrown in flesh business. It was alleged that the applicant had made a complaint to the Additional Superintendent of Police but since no action was taken, therefore criminal complaint was filed.
3. The statements of witnesses were recorded and by the impugned order passed in unregistered complaint, JMFC Bhopal dismissed the complaint on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove that Sharda Basure is his wife.
4. Although in the complaint, it was alleged by the complainant that the accused persons had ha abducted his wife and had sexually exploited her but in the complaint which was made by the complainant to Addl.S.P., the applicant had alleged the commission of theft and violation of religious feelings. It was also mentioned that his wife Narmada Basure came back to his house at 3-4 3 4 PM and she took away 20Kg of rice and Rs.1,500/-
Rs.1,500/ kept in the Almirah. Thus, it was held that in the complaint which was made to Addl.S.P. the applicant has disclosed the name of his wife as Narmada Basure whereas in the complaint he is alleging the name of his wife as Sharda Basure. Furthermore, it is clear from the complaint made to Addl.S. Addl.S.P. that his wife had deliberately left him and accordingly the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41191 JBP:41191 3 M.Cr.C. No. No.8579/2024
5. The revision filed by the applicant has also been dismissed by the Revisional Court by order dated 29/11/2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.544/2023.
6. Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the Courts below have wrongly rejected the testimony of the witnesses and there is sufficient material to registe register the criminal complaint.
7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
8. The applicant has not filed the copies of the deposition deposition-sheet of the witnesses who were examined under Section 200/202 of Cr.P.C. The copy of the criminal complaint filed by the applicant has also not been filed. Copy of the complaint made by the applicant to the Addl.S.P. has also not been filed. The aforesaid documents were necessary to adjudicate the correctness of the findings/ observations made by the Courts below but why the applicant has decided not to place it on record has not been clarified.
9. From the order of the JMFC Bhopal, it is clear that the applicant had informed Addl.S.P. that his wife has voluntarily left his house. Even in the complaint made to Addl.S.P. the name of the wife wife of the applicant has been disclosed as Narmadam Basure whereas in the criminal complaint, he disclosed name of his wife as Sharda Basure.
10. Section 204 of Cr.P.C. provides that if in the opinion of Magistrate taking cognizance of offence, there the is suffici sufficient ground for proceeding then he shall issue summons/ warrants etc. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41191 JBP:41191 4 M.Cr.C. No. No.8579/2024
11. The word "sufficient ground" has been explained by Supreme Court in the case of Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 578 which reads as under:-
"18. The expression expression "sufficient ground" used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. This interpretation of the the provisions contained in Chapters XV and XVI CrPC finds adequate support from the judgments of this Court in Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 97 : 1958 Cri LJ 244 :
1958 618] Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya 58 SCR 618], Dulaji Ghadigaonkar [AIR 1960 SC 1113 : 1960 Cri LJ 1499 : (1961) 1 SCR 1], Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash ChandraBose [AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 397 : (1964) 1 SCR 639] , Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B. [(1973) 3 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521], Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan [1980 Supp SCC 499 :
1981 SCC (Cri) 438], Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh [(1992) 2 SCC 213 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 361] and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 471].
471]
19. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose [AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 397 :
(1964) 1 SCR 639], it was held that where there was prima facie evidence, the Magistrate was bound to issue process and even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have have a defence, the matter has to be left to be decided by an appropriate forum at an appropriate stage. It was further held that the issue of process can be refused only when the Magistrate finds that the evidence led by the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41191 JBP:41191 5 M.Cr.C. No. No.8579/2024 complainant is self-contradictory self y or intrinsically untrustworthy.
20. In Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan [1980 Supp SCC 499 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 438], this Court examined the scheme of Sections 200 to 204 and held: (SCC p. 503, para 10) "10. ... At the stage of Sections 203 and 204 of the Crimina Procedure Code in a case Criminal exclusively triable by the Court of Session, all that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Cri Procedure Code, there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding' against the accused. At this stage, the Magistrate is not to weigh wei the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court. The standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinising the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges."
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh [(1992) 2 SCC 213 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 361] in the following words: (SCC p. 217, para 11) "11. ... The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations all made in the complaint in order to NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41191 JBP:41191 6 M.Cr.C. No. No.8579/2024 determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for fo proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full-dress full trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code.
Code To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution pr whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry."
(emphasis supplied)
22. The use of the word "shall" in the proviso to Section ection 202(2) is prima facie indicative of mandatory character of the provision contained therein, but a close and critical analysis thereof NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41191 JBP:41191 7 M.Cr.C. No. No.8579/2024 along with other provisions contained in Chapter XV and Sections 226 and 227 and Section 465 would clearly show that tha non-examination examination on oath of any or some of the witnesses cited by the complainant is, by itself, not sufficient to denude the Magistrate concerned of the jurisdiction to pass an order for taking cognizance and issue of process provided he is satisfied that that prima facie case is made out for doing so. Here it is significant to note that the word "all" appearing in the proviso to Section 202(2) is qualified by the word "his". This implies that the complainant is not bound to examine all the witnesses named in the complaint or whose names are disclosed in response to the order passed by the Magistrate. In other words, only those witnesses are required to be examined whom the complainant considers material to make out a prima facie case for issue of process."
12. Since nce the Courts below have recorded their satisfaction that there is no sufficient ground to proceed and the applicant has not placed any document on record to dislodge the said satisfaction, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
13. Accordingly, application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.08.20 17:55:21 +05'30'