Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin Atal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 10 th OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 24230 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NITIN S/O GHANSHYAM ATAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE R/O JAMA MASJID GALI
AGAR DISTRICT AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PUSHPRAJ SINGH RATHORE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HIGH COURT JUDICATURE THROUGH PRINCIPAL
REGISTRAR MAHODYA HIGH COURT JABALPUR
R/O HIGH COURT PARISAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHRI PRADEEP DUBEY PRATHAM ATI SATRA
NYAYADHISH AGAR JILA AGAR MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRIMAN PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MAHODAY
SATARKTA MAN. UCHCH NYAYALAY JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MADHYA PRADESH JARYE POLICE ADHIKSHAK
AGAR JILA AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRAMOD THAKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4/STATE)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7847 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 4/30/2024
3:23:40 PM
2
NITIN ATAL S/O GHANSHYAMDAS ATAL, AGED ABOUT
53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL MALI KHEDI ROAD
SANSKAR SCHOOL KE PASS, DISTRICT AGAR MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PUSHPRAJ SINGH RATHORE - ADVOCATE)
AND
PRADEEP DUBEY S/O NOT MENTIONED OCCUPATION:
1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AGAR DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI GAGAN BAJAD - ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)
WRIT PETITION No. 1153 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NITIN S/O GHANSHYAMDAS ATAL, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, OCCUPATION: VAKALAT JAMA MASJID GALI
AAGAR ZILA AAGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PUSHPRAJ SINGH RATHORE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HIGH COURT JUDICATURE DWARA PRINCIPAL
REGISTRAR MAHODAY HIGH COURT JABALPUR
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI BHUPENDRA SINGH JI KUSHWAHA JMFC
M A H O D AY AAGAR JILA AAGAR MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRIMAN PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MAHODAY
SATKARTA MAAN UCHH NYAYALAYA JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI LALIT KISHOR POORV REGISTRAR
SATKARTA VARTMAN PADSTATHPNA PRADHAN
JILA SATR NYAYADHEESH SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. M.P. SASHAN JAYRE POLICE ADHIKSHAK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 4/30/2024
3:23:40 PM
3
MAHODAY AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRAMOD THAKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4/STATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 2370 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NITIN ATAL S/O GHANSHYAMDAS ATAL, AGED ABOUT
53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O MALIKHEDI ROAD,
SANSKAR SCHOOL KE PASS, DISTRICT AGAR MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PUSHPRAJ SINGH RATHORE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION AGAR THROUGH POLICE
STATION AGAR, DISTRICT AGAR MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRIMAN POLICE ADHIKSHAK AGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHRIMAN THANA PRABHARI AGAR AGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAMOD THAKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND
SHRI GAGAN BAJAD - ADVOCATE FOR THE INTERVENOR)
These petitions coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Since the controversy involved in all these matters is similar and arising out of the same issue, they are taken up in analogous hearing and are being disposed off by this common order. However, for the proper and complete adjudication, we will deal with the cases one by one.
WRIT PETITION No. 24230 of 2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 4
2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
1- fjLiks.Ms.V Jh iznhi th nqcs lkgc }kjk izkFkhZ ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo:) ST 4@15 esa ikfjr vkns'k 29@11@22 eas m)fjr dh xbZ izfrdwy fVIi.kh& & ¼Jh fufru vVy vf/koDrk }kjk ekuuh; iz/kku ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds le{k /kkjk 408 n-iz-la- dk tks vkosnu izLrqr fd;k gS] mlesa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd eq> ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk ckyd iq"ik dkUosaV Ldwy vkxj esa i< rk gS] tks fd esjs futrk ds vf/kdkj dk mYya?ku gS rFkk blls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd Jh fufru vVy vf/koDrk ,oa mudk i{kdkj Jh vfer >ao j }kjk esjh O;fDrxr tkudkfj;ka gkfly dh tk jgh gSA ;gh ugha bl izdj.k ds laca/k esa mudh vksj ls izR;{k ,oa vizR;{k :i ls Qksu djokdj eq> ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ij ncko cukus dk iz; kl fd;k tk jgk gSA½ & ¼pawfd blh izdj.k esa izLrqr vfHkys[k ls nf'kZr gksrk gS fd iqfyl Fkkuk vkxj ftyk 'kktkiqj ds vijk/k dzekad 223@13 /kkjk 120] 465] 468] 471] 420 Hkknl] vijk/k dzekad 286@13 /kkjk 465] 468] 471] 211] 120 ch Hkknl] vijk/k dzekad 222@13 /kkjk 120] 420] 465] 468] 471 Hkknl ,oa vijk/k dzekad 364@13 /kkjk 420] 465] 468] 471] 120 ch Hkknl ds vijk/k esa vfHk;qDr Jh fufru vVy firk ?ku';kenkl vVy ,oa vuds ifjokjtu Hkh vfHk;qDr ds :i esa ukekafdr gSA ftlls bl vk'kadk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd og eq> ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ij ncko cukus dh fu;r ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dh {kfr igqapk ldrs gS] D;ksafd chuk esjs ;k esjs iq= dk ihNs fd;s mUgsa ;k muds i{kdkj vfer >ao j dks esjs lkr o"khZ; ckyd ds fo|ky; dh tkudkjh ugh gks ldrhA rFkk Jh fufru vVy vf/koDrk ncko cukus gsrq yxkrkj vlR; f'kdk;rsa dj jgs gSA vr% bl laca/k esa lqj{kk dh n`f"V ls ekuuh; iz/kku ,oa ftyk l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn; dks lwpuk izsf"kr dh tkosA½ dks ST 4@15 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29@11@22 eas ls ,Dliat fd;s tkus gsrq U;k; fgr esa U;k;ksfpr vkKk vkns'k iznk; fd;k tkosA 2- fjLiks.Ms.V dzekad 2 Jh iznhi th dqekj lkgc ds }kjk U;kf;d vkns'k ls m)fjr dh xbZ mudh futh tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij fd mudks izR;{k] vizR;{k :i ls Qksu yxokdj mu ij ncko cuok;k tk jgk gSA bl ckcr~ muds Qksu uacj ds vk/kkj ij rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds Qksu uacj ds vk/kkj ij jfoHkkx; tkap gkbZdksVZ T;wfMdspj }kjk djokbZ tkus gsrq mUgsa izsf"kr fd;s x;s ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vkosnu dks muds }kjk uLrhc) fd;s tkus dk funsZ'k cxSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dh lk{; dks fy;s ikfjr fd;k x;k gksus ls mls U;k; fgr esa fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq U;k;ksfpr vkKk vkns'k iznk; fd;k tkos ,oa ;kfpdkdrkZ dh f'kdk;r ih&3 ds vk/kkj ij foHkkxh; ,oa vuq'kklukRed dk;Zo kgh ;kfpdkdrkZ dks lquokbZ dk volj fd;k tkdj gkbZdksVZ T;wfMdspj tcyiqj }kjk lqfuf'pr fd;s tkus gsrq fjLiks.Ms.V uacj 1 gkbZdksVZ T;wfMdspj dks U;k;ksfpr vkKk vkns'k U;k; fgr esa iznk; fd;k tkosA 3- vU; tks Hkh U;k;kuqdwy lgk;rk ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s] og U;k; fgr esa iznk; dh tkosA
3. It is a case of the petitioner that in a pending case before the trial court, which is in the list of 25 old cases, the proceedings were taken up by the concerned judicial officer. On 29.11.2022, the case being Sessions Trial No.100004 of 2015 (State of M.P. vs Rajesh and others) was taken up for consideration and the matter was listed for recording of evidence of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 5 Government officials namely Smt. Meeta Shrivastava and G.K. Gehlot. The petitioner appeared in the matter and filed an application in the pending case informing the court that the proceedings for transfer of the matter from the present court have been filed before the District Judge. Therefore, he prayed for adjourning the case on that date, which was vehemently opposed by the AGP on the ground that there is no order of staying the proceedings from any of the courts, neither there is any order for transferring of the case to any other court. Therefore, proceedings should not be stopped. It was pleaded that the matter is listed for recording evidence of Government officials. It falls under the category of old cases and has to be considered. It was informed that an order has been passed in MCrC No.56092 of 2022 on 24.11.2022 filed by one Pawan Sharma wherein interim order was granted not to take any coercive action against him and for calling of the record of the present case. However, no such order was placed before the court nor any direction for summoning of the record was produced. Mere filing of an application under Section 408 of the CrPC praying for transfer of the case to some other court without there being any directions by the court, cannot be presumed to be an interim order granted by the court or any direction not to proceed further in the matter.
4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court rejected the application and proceeded in the matter and recorded the statement of witnesses viz. Meeta Shrivastava and G.K. Gehlot. The petitioner again filed another application before the court, informing that the direction for summoning of record has been received in the IT cell. The same may be called for and verified. The System Officer was called for and he has produced an order calling for the record of S.T. No.04 of 2015 after scanning and uploading on the server. At that moment, the learned AGP requested the court that as the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 6 retired police officer is a resident of Neemach, therefore, further proceedings of cross-examination should not be stopped. It was pointed out that there is no order for staying the proceedings as far as the petitioner is concerned. Even otherwise, the case is of five-year-old case, therefore, the examination should be completed. The record can be sent thereafter and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner.
5. The learned trial Court considered the application filed by the petitioner. It was observed that earlier application filed by the petitioner for assisting in the criminal case was rejected by the court. Thereafter, again and again he is filing the applications before the court. He has argued before the court that cost may be imposed upon him but the court should not proceed with the case. It was observed in the order that it is his constitutional right to participate in the proceeding in which he is an interested party, therefore, the court cannot stop him. In an application filed under Section 408 of the CrPC, he has mentioned that the son of the judicial officer is studying in Pushpa Convent School, Agar.
There was no requirement of mentioning such personal information in an application under Section 408 of the CrPC. This goes to show that the petitioner is trying to collect personal information of the judicial officer. The order impugned reflects that he has made several attempts to pressurize the judicial officer by making phone calls. It is also observed that there are several criminal cases registered against the petitioner and his family members. The details whereof are (i) Crime No.223 of 2013 registered at Police Station Agar District Shajapur for the offence under Sections 120, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC (ii) Crime No.286 of 2013 registered at Police Station Agar District Shajapur for the offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 211 and 120B of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 7 IPC (iii) Crime No.222 of 2013 registered at Police Station Agar District Shajapur for the offence under Sections 120, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC and (iv) Crime No.364 of 2013 registered at Police Station Agar District Shajapur for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. He is unable to point out what prejudice is caused to him if the examination of witness is done.
6. The trial Court vide impugned order observed that unnecessary pressure has been created by the petitioner through phone calls and every effort was being made that the Court may not proceed further in the matter. The learned trial Court, after observing the factual position, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
7. Being aggrieved by the observations made in the order, the present petition is filed on the ground that such observations are being made without even providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
9. The record indicates that the criminal case was listed for recording of evidence of two prosecution witnesses namely Meeta Shrivastava and G.K. Gehlot who are government officials and present before the court for recording of their depositions as PW13 and PW14. The criminal case is an old case pending since 2015. An application was filed by the petitioner informing the court that he has preferred an application under Section 408 of CrPC before the District Judge Shajapur requesting for transferring the case from the present court on various allegations. However, there is no order passed by the District Court for transferring of the case. No document pertaining to the same was placed on record. The case is falling under the category of five-year-old case. Therefore, the trial Court was duty bound to record the statements of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 8 Government witnesses who were appeared before the Court. The application filed by the petitioner was not found to be acceptable and the same was rejected and the trial Court proceeded to record the statements of Meeta Shrivastava and G.K. Gehlot and when the trial Court completed the cross-examination of G.K. Gehlot, another application was filed by the petitioner for not proceeding further in the matter and a prayer was made to the court that the information of calling the record is available in the IT cell. The same may be called for. The learned judicial officer took note of the aforesaid fact and enquired from the IT cell regarding the information. The same reflected that the record of the case was called for, however, the order-sheet does not reflect that there was any stay on the proceedings. The statements of the witnesses were already recorded. The reason for proceeding in the matter was on the request of learned AGP before the trial Court that the Government witness has to come a long way and being a retired Government servant, it would be very difficult for him to again come to the court for recording of deposition. However, recording of evidence would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The demand letter reflects that after scanning of the entire record, the same be sent to the High Court. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the witnesses were the retired government servants and there was no stay on the proceedings, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in recording their depositions. The application filed by the petitioner requesting for assisting the government counsel was already rejected. Again, he has filed the application before the court. The same was not maintainable. The petitioner has gone to the extent and argued before the Court that his application may be entertained at any cost and if the court wants to impose some cost upon the petitioner, the same may be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 9 ordered but the Court cannot stop him from participating in the proceedings. He has mentioned in his application under Section 408 of the CrPC regarding the personal information of the judicial officer to the extent that his son is studying in Pushpa Convent School Agar which has virtually no relevance to the case in hand. The aforesaid mentioning of personal information of the judicial officer was not warranted and called for in an application under Section 408 of the CrPC. It is observed in the order that the petitioner is creating an undue pressure upon the concerning court/judicial officer by making phone calls through others and is pressurizing the judicial officer.
10. The impugned order reflects that there are several criminal cases registered against the petitioner and his family members. Under these circumstances, there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in proceeding further in the matter and recording of depositions of prosecution witnesses. The trial Court has virtually narrated what is mentioned in the application under Section 408 of the CrPC filed by the petitioner himself. For these reasons, no interference is called for in the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court.
11. The petition sa n s merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7847 of 2024
12. This is a petition under Section 482 of CrPC challenging the orders dated 25.01.2024, 30.01.2024, 05.02.2024, 06.02.2024, 08.02.2024 and 09.02.2024 passed by the First Additional and Sessions Judge, Agar District Shajapur in MJCR No.12 of 2024 by which a criminal contempt has been registered and reference has been sent to the High Court. This petition is filed on the grounds that the principles of natural justice are not being followed and opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in the preliminary enquiry has not been provided to Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 10 him.
13. The record indicates that the order dated 25.01.2024 is with respect to the criminal proceedings proposed to be drawn against the petitioner considering the incident dated 22.01.2024 by which the petitioner is alleged to have thrown a shoe on the presiding judicial officer and given him a threatening that "main chhodunga nahin". He misbehaved in the court with the judicial officer and hurled abusive language and took out his shoe and threw the same on the presiding judicial officer which hit him on his ear.
14. On seeing the incident, the staff of the concerned court tried to intervene and stop him. The petitioner did not stop there and attempted to record the incident on his mobile phone and when the Court Munshi tried to stop him and catch him, he ran away giving threatening that "aisi taisi kar dunga .. bahar nikalne par jaan se maar doonga" and also used abusive language. While he was running away from the court, his mobile phone fell down in the court. On the basis of such incident, an FIR has been registered vide Crime No.23 of 2024 at Police Station Agar for the offence under Sections 332, 353, 294 and 506B of the IPC.
15. The learned trial Court has taken note of various other incidences and facts wherein the petitioner has misbehaved and tried to interfere with the court proceedings and has arrived at a conclusion that the act of the petitioner clearly falls under the category of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for which a notice was issued to him vide order dated 25.01.2024 asking him as to why the proceeding under Section 15(2) of the Act be not initiated against him and the matter be referred to the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was directed to be listed on 29.01.2024.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 1116. The order-sheet dated 29.01.2024 of the trial Court would reflect that the notice could not be served upon the petitioner as he was not available. Therefore, direction was given to make all possible efforts to serve him the notice and in case he is not available, the same may be affixed at his house. The matter was listed on 05.02.2024. On that date, the show cause notice was served upon him by affixing it at his house as well as at a place where the petitioner used to sit in the court premises. A counsel namely Shri Pushpraj Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the court and filed an application under Rule 5 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1980 and asked for some time to file reply. Time was granted to him and the matter was posted on 06.02.2024 for filing the reply. On 06.02.2024, the counsel appearing for the petitioner demanded certain documents. The request was acceded to and the documents as sought for were directed to be supplied to him. He was also heard on the application filed under Section 91 of the CPC and Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1980. After hearing, the applications were rejected. But he was again given time to file the final reply to the notice issued to him. The matter was posted on 08.02.2024. On that date, he has filed reply to the show cause notice issued to him which on due consideration by the Court was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly, the decision was taken to continue the proceedings and the statements of the witnesses were recorded in the preliminary enquiry. The matter was directed to be listed on 09.04.2024 and on that date, by a detailed order, the learned trial Court after mentioning all the facts and circumstances of the case, has arrived at a conclusion that the act of the petitioner clearly falls under the category of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, the reference was made to this Signature Not Verified Court. All these orders are put to challenge by way of present petition.
Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 1217. After going through the entire order sheets of the trial Court, it is found that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in sending the reference to the High Court. The criminal contempt has already been registered against the petitioner and this Court has already taken cognizance of the same. The same is pending consideration. In view of the fact that this court has already seized of with the criminal contempt proceedings, no case for interference is made out. The act of the petitioner appears to be falling under the category of Contempt of Court Act, therefore, reference was made. The petitioner is yet to file a reply in the criminal contempt proceedings. The petitioner has already marked his presence through his advocate in the criminal contempt who has prayed for some time to file response to the proceedings.
18. Apart from the aforesaid, in pursuance of an order passed in Writ Petition No.2370 of 2024 the learned Single Judge while hearing the writ petition filed by the petitioner at High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore has passed an order dated 01.03.2024 and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, has directed him to surrender before the concerned police station within a week, as the criminal case has been registered against him.
19. It is observed in the order-sheet that while the police authorities tried to arrest him, he absconded in a car by running over a police personnel who also received injuries and a criminal case was registered at Crime No.86 of 2014 for the offences under Section 353, 294, 506 of IPC. The order dated 01.03.2024 was assailed by the petitioner by filing SLP (Crl.) No.3413 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.04.2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while permitting him to withdraw the SLP has directed to surrender before the concerned police station as Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 13 directed by the High Court.
20. It is informed that till date, the compliance of the orders dated 01.03.2024 and 10.04.2024 (supra) has not been made by the petitioner. He has already been declared as an absconder and an award of Rs.10,000/- has been passed against him. But he is not cooperating with the investigating agency and not complying with the orders passed by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the entire facts of the case, no illegality is committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
21. This petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
WRIT PETITION No. 1153 of 202422. This petition has been filed against the filing of a complaint dated 31.12.2022 and order dated 02.09.2023 whereby the proceedings have been directed to be continued against the petitioner holding that the concerned court is having jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the closure of his complaint without providing any opportunity of hearing to him.
23. The order dated 02.09.2023 reflects that a Criminal Case No.204 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 120B of IPC was received to the court vide order dated 24.08.2023 after committal. Directions were given by the JMFC Sagar to the petitioner to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar on 04.09.2023. No illegality is found in the aforesaid order as the Court is having jurisdiction to deal with the case in hand.
24. As far as the grievance of the petitioner with respect to closure of the complaint made by the petitioner against a judicial officer is concerned, the complaint dated 31.12.2022 was scrutinized upto the High Court level and vide Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 14 letter dated 31.12.2022, it was informed to the petitioner by the Registrar (Vigilance) that the complaint has been filed. The complaint was found to be false and frivolous based on no material available on record. Therefore, the same was closed. Hence, no illegality is found in the aforesaid order. No relief can be granted to the petitioner.
25. The petition sa n s merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION No. 2370 of 202426. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the FIR being Crime No.23 of 2024 registered at Police Station Agar for the offence under Sections 332, 353, 294 and 506 of IPC on the ground that the same has been filed on false and frivolous grounds and that the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 have not been followed by the police authorities. The notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC should have been issued to him and all protections should be granted to him as the offences are punishable for less than seven years' imprisonment.
27. Vide order dated 01.03.2024, the learned Single Judge ordered as under:
"Heard on I.A. No.1725/2024, which is an application for amendment inthe writ petition.
Considering the fact that the notices have not yet been issued and theapplication is based on subsequent events, the same is hereby allowed.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to carryout the amendment within week's time.
Also heard on the question of interim relief.
On due consideration, and taking note of the fact that against th epetitioner, the allegations are that he had thrown a shoe on a sitting Judge in theCourt at Agar Malwa, which is a serious incident demeaning the dignity andauthority of the Court, and thus has to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 15 viewed seriously. Further consideringthe fact that the petitioner is still absconding and when the police tried toapprehend him in front of High Court triangle, he absconded in a car by running over a police personnel who also received injuries and a case under Section353, 294, 506 of IPC at Crime No.86/2014 has also been registered against him, and further considering the fact that there are other cases also registeredagainst the petitioner, no case for interim relief of pre- arrest bail in this writpetition is made out.
Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is hereby declined and the petitioner is also directed to surrender before the concerned police station within a week's time.
Let the matter be listed in the week commencing 11/03/2024."
28. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being SLP (Crl.) No.3413 of 2024 and vide order dated 10.04.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered as under:
"1. After arguing for some time and on our expressing reservation in entertaining the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition.
2. Permission to withdraw the petition is granted.
3. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Police Station as directed by the High Court."
29. In view of the fact that the SLP (Crl.) preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn and further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the petitioner to surrender before the concerned police station as directed by the High Court, therefore, he was required to comply with the order dated 01.03.2024. But till date the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid order and surrendered before the concerning police station.
30. Once there is a gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court in WP No.2370 of 2024 on 01.03.2024 as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.04.2024, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is bound to comply with the aforesaid orders. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 4/30/2024 3:23:40 PM 16 petitioner has already been declared as an absconder and an award of Rs.10,000/- has been declared against him. Even the Adhivakta Parishad has made several complaints against the petitioner. Despite being declared as an absconder and award being declared against the petitioner and there is an order passed by this Court in WP No.2370 of 2024 dated 01.03.2024 as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.), the petitioner has not surrendered.
31. The case in hand deals with an FIR registered against the petitioner with respect to an act of throwing a shoe upon a judicial officer, his indisciplined behaviour, use of abusive language and threatening being given by him, for which a criminal contempt has already been registered against the petitioner. Therefore, no case for quashing of the FIR is made out nor is there any requirement of following the procedure as provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) looking to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has already been declared as an absconder and several criminal cases are registered against him as reflected from the record of the case. He has not cooperated in the interrogation. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
32. The petition sa n s merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
33. For the foregoing reasons, all the petitions (WP No.24230 of 2023, MCrC No.7847 of 2024, WP No.1153 of 2024 and WP No.2370 of 2024) are hereby dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
VV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 4/30/2024
3:23:40 PM
17
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 4/30/2024
3:23:40 PM