Madhya Pradesh High Court
Monu @ Vedprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 19 July, 2017
CRR-496-2017
(MONU @ VEDPRAKASH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
19-07-2017
Shri Rajiv Sharma, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Pane Lawyer for the respondent no. 1/ State.
This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 15-5-2017 passed by 2nd A.S.J., Guna in S.T. No. 93/2017 by which the charges under Sections 329 or in the alternative 329/34, 341, 506B of I.P.C. have been framed.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present criminal revision in short are that the respondent no. 2/complainant lodged a F.I.R. on 20-2-2017 to the effect that at about 11:45 he was coming back to his home from the house of one Chanchal Kumar, Advocate. When he reached in front of the Garh Bank, the applicants stopped his way and demanded Rs.500/- for purchasing liquor. When the complainant refused to do so, the applicants started abusing him and started assaulting him by fists and blows. The applicant no. 1 pushed him as a result of which, the complainant fell on the iron railing. After hearing the shouts of the complainant, the other witnesses came on the spot and saved the complainant. The applicants also extended the threat that in case, the complainant do not pay money for purchasing liquor, then he will be killed.
On the oral complaint of the complainant, the police registered the offence under Sections 327,341,323,506, 504,34 of I.P.C.
It appears that during investigation, the C.S.P., Guna, also conducted an enquiry and came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 327,329 of I.P.C. is made out and therefore, the aforesaid Sections be deleted. Consequently, the police filed the chargesheet against the applicants but the same was not filed for offence under Sections 327, 329 of I.P.C.
The Trial Court by order dated 15-5-2017, framed charges under Sections 329, 341, 506 Part 2 or in the alternative 329/34 of I.P.C.
Challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, framing charges under Sections 329, 341, 506 Part 2 or in the alternative 329/34 of I.P.C., it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicants, that once, the police after conducting the detailed investigation had come to a conclusion that no offence under Section 327 or under Section 329 of I.P.C. is made out and had decided not to file the chargesheet for offence under Sections 327 or under Section 329 of I.P.C., then the Trial Court should not have framed charge under Section 329 or in the alternative under Section 329/34 of I.P.C. by ignoring the report of the C.S.P., Guna. Per contra, it is submitted by the State Counsel that the Court is not the mouth piece of the Police and if the Court is of the opinion that from the material available on record, if any other charge is also made out, then the Court is well within its rights to frame the charge, although the investigating agency might not have chosen to file the chargesheet for the said offence.
The Supreme Court in the case of L. Krishna Reddy Vs. State reported in (2014) 14 SCC 401 has held as under :
''11. The court is neither a substitute nor an adjunct of the prosecution. On the contrary, once a case is presented to it by the prosecution, its bounden duty is to sift through the material to ascertain whether a prima facie case has been established which would justify and merit the prosecution of a person.'' The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 137 has held as under :
''12...........For framing of charge under Section 228, the Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing the parties at the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC if the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he is competent to frame charge for such offence even if not mentioned in the charge-sheet.'' Thus, it is clear that the Trial Court is not bound by the chargesheet filed by the prosecution and from the material available on record, if the Court is of the view that any other offence is also made out, then it can frame charges for the said offence also, although that offence might not be mentioned in the charge-sheet. Now, the question for determination is that whether the material available on record is sufficient to frame charge under Section 329 or in the alternative 329/34 of I.P.C. or not?
According to the prosecution case, the applicants demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- for purchasing liquor from the complainant, who is an old person aged about 73 years. He was beaten by the applicants by fists and blows and was pushed as a result of which he fell down on an iron railing and suffered fracture of Lower end of Left radius bone. Thus, it is clear that grevious hurt was caused for extracting money.
Therefore, it is clear that there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge under Section 329 or in the altnerative 329/34 of I.P.C. Further, it is well established principle of law that meticulous appreciation of the material available on record is not permissible at the stage of framing of charge and if the material raises a strong suspicion then, that by itself is sufficient to frame charge against the accused.
As already held by this Court that there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge under Section 329 or in the alterantive 329/34 of I.P.C., therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court did not commit any illegality in framing charge under Section 329 or in the alternative under Section 329/34 of I.P.C. also.
No other argument is advanced by the Counsel for the applicants. Before parting with this order, this Court feels it proper to mention that certain observations have been made in this order while considering the submissions made by the Counsel for the applicants. The Trial Court should not get prejudiced by any of the observation made by this Court as they have been made considering the limited scope of interference at the stage of framing of charge. The Trial Court must decide the trial on the basis of the evidence which would come on record. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB