Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tribhuwan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2017
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR. No. 717/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No. 717/2016
Tribhuwan Singh & Others
Versus
State of M.P.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vibhor Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Neelesh Tomar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(28.03.2017) Applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') against the order dated 16.04.2016 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No. 76/2016 whereby charge under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC has been framed against the applicants.
2- The facts leading to filing of the present case are that the applicants are accused of recovering money in excess of the proscribed limit in the cattle market Ashok Nagar, due to which an FIR bearing Crime No. 270/2015 was registered by the Police Station Ashok Nagar against the applicants for commission of offence punishable under Section 384, 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Thereafter, the trial Court has framed the charge punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC against the -( 2 )- CRR. No. 717/2016 applicants, which is the subject matter of present revision petition.
3- Learned counsel for the applicants took this Court through the charge-sheet to submit that the charge framed by the trial court against the applicants is without any basis and the charge- sheet does not reflect any commission affected by the applicant which satisfies the ingredients of Section 392 of IPC. The only allegation against the present applicants is that they have recovered the money in excess of the prescribed limit in the cattle market of Ashok Nagar, in violation of the auction terms stipulated by the Municipal Council Ashok Nagar. It is further submitted that even if the allegations against the applicants are taken on its face value, then at the most charge under Section 384 of IPC is made out against the applicants.
4- On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that the applicants had recovered the excess amount by force, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC is made out against them, therefore, the revision petition be dismissed.
5- The contention of rival parties is to be examined on the basis of material available on record and charge-sheet. The perusal of charge sheet indicates that the memo of charge as drawn by the trial Court against the applicants, is far from the allegation contended in the charge- sheet. The contents of FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of -( 3 )- CRR. No. 717/2016 Cr.P.C do not induct the applicants for committing robbery from the complainant. The section 392 of IPC is prescribed for the 'punishment for robbery'. The 'robbery' is defined in Section 390 of IPC. The definition of robbery is as under:
"390. Robbery- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery - Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or ear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery - Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation - The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
6- In the present case, there is no allegation against the applicants that they recovered the amount in excess from the complainant by putting him in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint, and, by so putting him in fear, induced him to deliver 150 rupees in place of 25 rupees. Therefore, the ingredients of -( 4 )- CRR. No. 717/2016 offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC are not satisfied against the applicants. Rather, the applicants are required to be tried for offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC, as the allegation against the applicants are that they inflicted fear in the complainant for making 150 rupees in place of 25 rupees. such act falls within the four corner of Section 384 of IPC. 7- Taking this view of the matter, the present revision petition is allowed in part by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2016 to the extent it relates to the framing of charge under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC, however, the trial Court is directed to frame the charge under Section 384 of IPC against the applicants and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge Aman