Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajendra @ Ballu Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2016
1 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016
Gajendnra & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & ors.
15.12.2016
Shri Nilesh Singh Tomar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.S.Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri K.K.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.332/2016 under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34A of IPC at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior and consequential proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.2 has lodged the report that she was married with Gajendra. After marriage from the year 2009 her husband Gajendra, father-in-law, Mulayam Sisngh, mother-in-law Pushpa Devi and sister-in-law Poonam started harassing her. On 8.7.2016 they gave beating to her by means of kicks and fists and her husband insisted to her her share from her father, otherwise they would not keep her and kill her. They have also turned out her. When she narrated the incident to her parents, thereafter the report has been lodged. On the basis of report, Crime No. 332/2016 under 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34A of IPC at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior has been registered.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that parties have settled their dispute and filed an application (I.A. No. 10183/2016) under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compromise, which has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court on 13.12.2016. It is mentioned that the parties have compromised voluntarily without any fear or force.
I have perused the record. It appears that the complainant and the petitioners have filed the compromise application, which has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court and it is stated 2 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 that complainant has compromised voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact coupled with the fact that complainant has compromised with the petitioners, there is no chances for conviction of the petitioners, hence prosecution of the petitioners would be a futile exercise. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'be Apex Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others Vs. Rahika & another (2011) 10 SCC 705, I find it a fit case to prevent the abuse of process of Court, where inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised.
In view of the aforesaid, FIR registered at Crime No.332/2016 under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34A of IPC at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioners.
Petition stands allowed accordingly.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge vv 3 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 M.Cr.C.No.267/2016 Raju and ors. vs. State of M.P. & ors. 21.09.2016 Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State. Shri D.S. Tomar, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 to 5. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.318/15 under Sections 308, 324, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149 of IPC at Police Station Shamshabad, Distt. Vidisha, and consequential proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-Kailash Singh has lodged a report that he was coming from Shamshabad, when he reached near Ramjanki temple, Raju alias Rajendra Singh met him. He started abusing. When he objected he started beating. When he raised alarm, Arjun Singh, Anant Singh and Chandan Singh came there to save him. Meanwhile, Sundar, Kallu, Shivcharan Singh, Bhammu alias Bhanwarlal, Kuber Singh, Bannu alias Banne Singh, Dongar Singh, Tamallal, Mohan singh, and Bhagwan Singh armed with stick, danda and axe came there and gave beating on his head, knee and forehead. Sangram Singh, Achal Singh, Sundar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh intervened and the incident was witnessed by them that Raju and others gave beating to his brothers. On the basis of the report Crime No.318/2015 under Sections 308, 324, 323, 506,147, 148, 149 of IPC at Police Station Shamshabad has been registered.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that parties have settled their dispute and filed an application under 4 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compromise.
I have perused the record. It appears that the complainant and the petitioners have filed the compromise application, which has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court and it is stated that complainant has compromised voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact coupled with the fact that complainant has compromised with the petitioners, there is no chances for conviction of the petitioners, hence prosecution of the petitioners would be a futile exercise. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'be Apex Court in Shiji alias Pappu and others Vs. Rahika & another (2011) 10 SCC 705, I find it a fit case to prevent the abuse of process of Court, where inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised.
In view of the aforesaid, FIR registered at Crime No.318/2015 under Sections 308, 324, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149, 294 of IPC at Police Station Shamshabad, District Vidisha and the consequential proceedings are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioners.
Petition stands allowed accordingly.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.A. No.391/2015 21.09.2016 Shri Puran Kulshrestha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Arun Barua, P.L. for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to keep present the appellant on the next date i.e. 17.10.2016.
List on 17.10.2016.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge 5 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 van Cr.A. No.285/2016 21.09.2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State. One week time is granted to remove the default.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R. No.110/2005 21.09.2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State. Let non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the petitioner no.1-Kamruddin for his appearance before this Court on a date to be fixed by the office.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.A. No.284/2007 21.09.2016 None for the appellant.
Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State. Non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant has been returned unserved.
Let fresh non-bailable warrant be issued against appellant and notice be also issued to the surety as to why the amount of surety bond be not forfeited.
(D.K.Paliwal) 6 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 Judge van Cr.R. No.115/2009 21.09.2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State. Record of the Collector, District Gwalior has not been received so far.
Office is directed to call for the record of the Collector, District Gwalior.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.A. No.863/2009 21.09.2016 None for the appellants.
Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State. List after a week.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R. No.572/2010 21.09.2016 None for the petitioners.
Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State. On 17.08.2016 also none was present on behalf of the petitioners, it seems that the petitioners are not interested to prosecute this petition. Hence, it is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
7 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.3012/2010 21.09.2016 Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the petitioners/State. Shri Rajeev Budholiya, Advocate for the respondent. Learned Panel Lawyer submits that his office file is not available and seeks last opportunity for the same.
Prayer is allowed.
Last opportunity is granted.
It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given on the next date.
List after a week.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R. No.931/2006 21.09.2016 Shri Rohit Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Arun Barua, P.L. For the respondent/State. Heard on I.A. No.8205/16, which is an application for condonation of absence of applicant No.2-Devendra.
It is submitted that due to ill health of his mother, the applicant could not mark his presence on 27.06.2016. Hence, prayed for condonation of absence. An affidavit has been filed in support of the application. The applicant is also present in person.
On due consideration, the application is allowed. The applicant No.2 is directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 27.02.2017 to mark his presence and on such 8 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 subsequent dates as may be fixed by the same.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.8901/2016 Maan Singh vs. State of M.P. 21.09.2016 Shri S.K. Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. With the consent of both the parties the matter is finally heard at the motion stage.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Revision No.200014/16 whereby the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for release of gun in his favour on supurdginama has been affirmed.
Brief facts of the case are that Gurusharan has lodged a report upon which Crime No.125/2015 under Section 307/34 of IPC has been registered. During investigation, the gun of the petitioner was seized because it was alleged that the petitioner also fired at accused persons in defense. After investigation, the police submitted expunged report against the accused persons, but the gun has not been returned to the petitioner. Therefore, he preferred an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for returning the gun which has been dismissed. Being aggrieved, a criminal revision was preferred before the Session Judge Datia which has also been dismissed. Being aggrieved, this petition has been filed.
It is submitted by learned counsel that the court below has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. The gun is not 9 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 required in any case. Once the police after investigation has submitted the expunged report, there is no need to keep the gun in custody of the police. The learned court below ought to have returned the gun. Hence, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the gun belonging to the petitioner be released in favour of the petitioner on supurdginama.
Learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned order. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the order passed by the learned Court below as well as case diary, it appears that one Gurusharan has lodged the report that on 27.09.15 he was coming back along with Vipin Birthare and Monu Parihar to Pandokhar Dham, at about 11.45 pm, as soon as they reached near Sikri turn one Bolero vehicle was parked and Jeevan Parihar was standing there. He fired at his vehicle which hit the glass and another fire was shot by Mahesh Shrivastava from Katta. Manvendra also fired. Two three persons made fire in the air. In defense he also fired in air along with Maan Singh. On the basis of the report, the crime No.125/15 under Section 307, 34 of IPC has been registered. After due investigation, it was found that the accused persons were not present at the place of incident and the expunged report has been submitted.
Considering the aforesaid report of the police, the gun alleged to have been seized from the petitioner ought to have been released. The learned court below has committed illegality in rejecting the prayer. This petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, it is allowed. It is directed that gun bearing No.N.P. Bore Rifle No.106272 be released in favour of the petitioner on supurdginama if he furnishes a personal bond and surety bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac only) to the satisfaction of the trial court with the condition that the gun shall be produced before the trial court as and when directed.
Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
10 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R.No.872/2016 21.09.2016 Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.
Let notice be issued to the respondents No.2 to 7 on payment of process fee within seven days.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van Cr.R.No.878/2016 21.09.2016 Shri A.S. Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner. Heard on I.A.No.8189/2016, which is an application for staying the execution of the impugned judgment.
Learned court below has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.91,820/- as a compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within a month and in default of payment it has been directed that she shall undergo three months S.I. On due consideration of the submission and the judgment passed by the learned court below, it is directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of Rs.91,820/- one month from today, the execution of impugned judgment shall remain stayed.
C.C. as per rules.
Let notice be issued to the respondent on payment of process fee within seven days, Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
11 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.9252/2016 21.09.2016 Shri B. Raj Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Let notice be issued to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within three days.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10159/2016 21.09.2016 None for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
List after four weeks.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C. No. 10589/2016 Samshad alias Firoj vs. State of M.P. 21.09.2016 Shri Chandrashekhar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Arun Barua, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.163/2015 registered at Police Station, Madhavganj, District Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4 12 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
According to prosecution case, complainant has lodged the report that her daughter, aged 17 years has gone to market along with her son. Her son came back, but her daughter did not return. Her son told that Samshad took away her daughter. During investigation daughter of the complainant was recovered. In her statement she disclosed that she came into contact with Samshad. Shamshad insisted to marry with him, but she refused. Then he threatened her if she would not marry he would kill her father. Due to fear, she gone with Samshad, who has committed sexual intercourse with her against her will.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence. The victim herself has gone with the applicant. The applicant is under custody since 16.05.2015. The statement of victim and three other persons have already been recorded. Trial is likely to take time. Hence, prayed for bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. Perused the case diary and the statement of the victim recorded during trial.
Considering the statement of victim (PW/2) and the medical report coupled with the fact that applicant is under custody for more than one year and four months, conclusion of trial likely to take time, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with 13 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10599/2016 21.09.2016 Shri Devendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list next week.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10643/2016 21.09.2016 Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. As prayed, list the case in next week along with M.Cr.C. No.10847/2016.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10867/2016 21.09.2016 14 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 Shri Suresh Agarwal, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to call for the case diary on the next date of hearing.
List next week.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10869/2016 Sheela Bai vs. State of M.P. 21.09.2016 Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, learned PP for the respondent/State.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.348/2016 registered at Police Station, Isagarh, District Ashok Nagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
As per prosecution case, 62 litres of country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant, for which she was not having any license.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence. She has falsely been implicated. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is under custody since 05/09/16. Trial is likely to take time. Hence, prayed for bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. Case-diary perused.
Considering the quantity alleged to have been seized from the possession of applicant coupled with the fact that applicant is under custody since 05/09/16, but without 15 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016 commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;
2.The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3.The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;
5.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van M.Cr.C.No.10874/2016 21.09.2016 Shri D.S. Kushwah, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
16 M.Cr.C.No.13919/2016Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to call for the case diary on the next date of hearing.
List next week.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge van