Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baljeet Kaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C.No.10362/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T JAB A L PU R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10362 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BALJEET KAUR W/O SHRI
AJEET SINGH CHHAWDA IN
FRONT KHANDELWAL
PETROL PUMP BESIDE
HARMILAP COLLEGE
DHANPURI DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJVARDHAN SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION
BURHAR DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. AMARJEET SINGH
CHHAWDA S/O LATE
HARSWANSH SINGH
CHHAWDA R/O NAGAR
PALIKA CHOWK P.S.
BURHAR DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ROMI @ NAVDEEP SINGH
CHHAWDA S/O SHRI
AMARJEET SINGH
CHAWDA R/O NAGAR
PALIKA CHOWK P.S.
BURHAR DISTRICT
2 M.Cr.C.No.10362/2024
SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been field for recall of order dated 03.03.2020 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.No.16060/2019 by which the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was allowed.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that since the Hon'ble Judge who had passed the order dated 03.03.2020 in M.Cr.C.No.16060/2019 has already demitted his office, therefore this case has been listed before this Court.
3. It is the case of the applicant that Harvansh Singh Chhawda who was the father of the applicant lodged a complaint against respondents No.2 and 3 on the basis of which FIR has been registered in Crime No.18/2022 for offence under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that non-applicant No.2 and 3 managed to get the cheque-book of the complainant fraudulently and made a forged entry on the cheque and presented the said cheque with forged signature of the complainant before the Bank and got Rs.2,00,000/- transferred in their account. During the investigation, the sample handwriting and signatures of the accused persons and complainant were taken and were sent to the State Examiner of questioned documents. After 3 M.Cr.C.No.10362/2024 completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed. During the pendency of trial, the State Examiner of questioned documents again required some sample of handwriting and signature of accused persons and accordingly, the Station House Officer of Police Burhar submitted an application before trial Court praying therein that he may be permitted to take sample handwriting and signatures of non- applicant No.3 and complainant Harvansh Singh Chhawda. In the said application, the S.H.O. did not mention the requirement of sample of handwriting of non-applicant No.2. The trial Court by order dated 02.04.2019 allowed the said application but also included the name of non-applicant No.2 for giving sample handwriting and signatures.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, non-applicant No.2 preferred a petition before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the trial Court has erroneously included his name in spite of the fact that the S.H.O. did not mention his name and the said application filed under Section 482 was allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 03.03.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.16060/2019 and the order passed by the trial Court was modified and direction to non-applicant No.2 to give his specimen signature and handwriting was set aside.
5. It is submitted that complainant Harvansh Singh Chhawda died on 22.10.2020. Thereafter, the present applicant preferred an application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the prosecution. The said applicant was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 21.12.2023. It is submitted that although the applicant was a necessary party but coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the application filed by the non-applicant No.2 without impleading the applicant and thus, it is 4 M.Cr.C.No.10362/2024 prayed that the order dated 03.03.2020, may be recalled and M.Cr.C.No.16060/2019 be re-listed for hearing.
6. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that Supreme Court in the case of Honnaiah T.H. vs. State of Karnataka and others decided on 04.08.2022 in Cr.A.No.1147/2022 has held that the complainant can also file a criminal revision against the interlocutory order. It is further submitted that Supreme Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Ors vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Another decided on 18.04.2022 has also recognized the victim's right to participate in criminal trial and his or her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. The coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the M.Cr.C.no.16060/2019 by order dated 03.03.2020 whereas the complainant Harvansh Singh Chhawda died on 22.10.2020 and the applicant filed an application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. on 21.12.2023 for assisting prosecution, which was allowed by the trial Court on the same day.
9. It is not the case of the applicant that the original complainant had ever filed any application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the prosecution. Even otherwise, the application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. was filed after more than three years of passing of the impugned order. Even otherwise, it appears that the applicant herself moved an application under Section 302 Cr.P.C. after three years of the death of her father. Once, the complainant was not assisting the 5 M.Cr.C.No.10362/2024 prosecution when the M.Cr.C.No.16060/2019 was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court coupled with the fact that even the SHO did not pray for sending the specimen of handwriting and signature of non-applicant No.2 to the State Examiner of questioned documents, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out for recall of order dated 03.03.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.16060/2019.
10. Accordingly, this application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE VB* VINAY KUMAR BURMAN 2024.03.19 19:02:21 +05'30'