Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok vs Shri Kailash Chandra Patidar on 20 December, 2021
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
WP No.24358/2021
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Indore
Writ Petition No.24358/2021
(Ashok s/o Basavanappa Naganagoudar
H.No. LIG-57, KHB Colony,
Subashnagar, Keshwapur, Hubli
Karnataka - 580 023
Versus
Shri Kailash Chandra Patidar
Complainant (Age - 52)
Crime Branch Police Indore MP
Shri Amod Singh Rathore
Investigating Officer (Age - 48 Yrs)
Crime Branch Police, Indore (MP)
Shri Nirmal Kumar Mandoli
Special Public Prosecutor
Plot No.54, Ambika Puri, Pipalyarao,
Bhanvarkuan, Indore (MP)
Shri Upendra Singh Chandrawat,
7/F, Rajani Bhawan, MG Road,
Opp. High Court Indore,
Indore (MP)
Shri Rajkumar A Choudhary
Village-Kelod, Tehsil-Mhow,
Indore (MP)
State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Crime Branch Police, Indore)
Indore, Dated 20.12.2021
Petitioner is present in person.
Government Advocate for the respondent / State of Madhya
Pradesh, on advance notice.
Heard finally on the question of admission.
ORDER
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following relief (s): -
"(a) Quashment of Proceedings / Charges against the Petitioner Ashok B. Naganagoudar in Session Court Trial No.699/2016.
(b) Compensation of Rs.20 Crores to be granted / released for ruining the career and life of petitioner and his son who was pursuing Bachelor of Engineering and have to drop education in be-
tween due to mental trauma and torture from social 2 WP No.24358/2021 and even have to sell house / property due to huge debt and legal expenses while under the judicial custody of 20 months.
(c) Any other such order deem fit by Hon'ble High Court."
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been provided with various relevant documents on which the prosecution has relied upon and as he was falsely implicated in the case and was arrested, it has also lead to his son relinquishing his studies of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.), thus, towards the torture and trauma and other losses, he should also be given Rs.20,00,00,000/- (rupees twenty crores).
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that such a relief cannot be granted to the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Heard the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State.
5. This Court, at the initial stage, as also during the course of hearing asked the petitioner if he wants to engage any counsel, to which, he has emphatically denied and has persisted with his arguments and when a query was made by this Court, whether he has been given the copy of the First Information Report (FIR) or other documents / statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of 3 WP No.24358/2021 Criminal Procedure, 1973, he has denied the same. However, on perusal of the documents filed with the petition, it it apparent that copy of the FIR has also been furnished to him as also the other documents but petitioner was not able to answer the queries raised by this court in any satisfactory manner.
6. It is also found from record that the petitioner had applied for certified copies of certain documents from the trial Court in which his name has also been mentioned, but the same have been refused to him on the ground that either the aforesaid documents have not yet been proved in the Court or the documents are not available in the case file; and hence, its copy cannot be given to him.
7. A written synopsis has also been filed by the petitioner, but this Court is also not able to make out any sense out of it as it has been primarily submitted by the petitioner that he has not been given certain relevant documents as provided u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. In the considered opinion of this court, if an accused has not been given the complete documents relied upon by the prosecution, then the remedy and relief are different and the accused cannot claim quashment of the proceedings against him in a writ petition. It is also apparent from the record that before coming to this court the petitioner has not filed any application before the trial court that he has not been given the copy of the charge sheet or some other documents but has straight away file for the certified copies of the same from the trial 4 WP No.24358/2021 court.
8. This court also finds that in para 3 of the petition, which refers to the 'Details of the remedies exhausted', it is mentioned that earlier also the petitioner had filed M.Cr.C. No.11898/2018, an application u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. but the same has been dismissed, the date of dismissal is not mentioned and the order has not been placed on record. It is also mentioned that SLP No.40521/2018 has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court and its date is also not furnished and its copy is also not placed on record. Thus, on this ground only, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is apparent that the petitioner is an educated person, who was serving in the Indian Army, against whom serious charges of defalcations, conspiracy and forgery have been leveled and who is now projecting himself as a victim of the system. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, who believes that he is competent enough to argue his matter, despite the fact that he lacked the basic knowledge of law; has persisted with the arguments and wasted valuable time of this court which is deprecable. He is cautioned not to file such frivolous petition in future. Merely because a person can read or write in English does not make him an expert in law, which is not his cup of tea.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition being misconceived, is hereby dismissed. However, with a liberty reserved 5 WP No.24358/2021 to the petitioner to take recourse of such remedy as is available to him under law.
All the other pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Pithawe RC RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE 2021.12.23 17:20:28 +05'30'