Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhrmendra Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5862 of 2021
Between:-
DHRMENDRA CHOUDHARY S/O DAAYA
SHANKAR CHOUDHARY , AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, OCCUPATION: KIRANA DUKAN MEIN
KARYA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.2248 DURGA
NAGAR RAMPUR POLICE THANA
GORAKHPUR JILA JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR TAMRAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE THANA GORAKHPUR JILA JABALPUR
M.P. POLICE ADHEEKSHAK AJAK JABALPUR
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. TH E STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR UP
POLICE ADIKSHAK HARIJAN KALYAN THANA
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
THANA PRABHARI HARIJAN KALYAN THANA
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SURESH PAREKH S/O LATE SHRI BABU LAL
PAREKH , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: TEHKEDAR/VIDYUT
CONTRACTOR H NO 208 ADARSH NAGAR
NARMADA ROAD POLICE THANA
GORAKHPUR DIST JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SUBHAM PAREKH S/O SHRI SURESH PAREKH
, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KIRANA DUKAN NOT MENTION (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. YASH JAIN AND OTHERS S/O NOT MENTION
OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION H NO 208
ADARSH NAGAR NARMADA ROAD POLICE
THANA GORAKHPUR DIST JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DINESH PRASAD PATEL, PANEL LAWYER)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
Signature Not
SAN
Verified This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
Digitally signed by
KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Date: 2022.02.11
13:09:08 IST
2
following:
ORDER
This is first appeal under Section 14-A (3) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 on behalf of the appellant- Dharmendra Choudhary.
This criminal appeal is filed against order dated 05.08.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in UNCR/922/2021 on an application moved by the present appellant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. rejecting the same on the basis of the investigation report furnished by Superintendent of Police AJAK, Jabalpur.
Appellant's grievance is that private respondents No.4, 5 and 6 had abused the present appellant Dharmendra Choudhary S/o Daya Shankar Choudhary with casteist remarks and had beaten him causing grievous injury, but police under the influence of private respondents did not lodge complaint/FIR as a result of which present appellant had approached the concerned court with an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the authorities to register FIR against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had sustained injuries, as a result of which, he was given treatment at Medical Hospital Jabalpur, but despite his sustaining such injuries, police has not recorded any report against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that alongwith I.A. No.20663/2021 certain documents have been filed by the appellant and alongwith the documents, medical prescriptions showing treatment given to the present appellant are enclosed.
However, fact of the matter is that on 27.10.2021, a report was lodged by one Hemant Malik claiming himself to be Divisional President 3 of Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh that certain temporary cleaning employees of Madhya Pradesh Power Management Corporation Limited had approached him with a complaint against Suresh Parikh. When at about 5:29 PM, he called Suresh Parikh on his phone then he got agitated. He disconnected call of the complainant Hemant Malik, then called back and started using filthy language besides threatening.
Suresh Parikh reached Tagore Garden, where complainant was available at that point of time and then the complainant reached Police Station alongwith President of Majdoor Sangh, viz. , Rajesh Manvekar when FIR was lodged under Sections 506 and 294 of IPC.
In this complaint, there is only one accused person namely; Suresh Parikh and there is no mention of names of other persons namely; Shubham Parikh or Yash Jain.
Next document is a representation made by certain Safai Karmcharis to the Chief General Manager, Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur that work of cleaning is carried out through the outsourcing agency and matter of their recruitment is not being considered, therefore, keeping their future in mind, matter in regard to their recruitment be considered.
Thereafter, another document is a warning issued to the Superintending Engineer (Civil) followed by a complaint made by Rajesh Marvekar on 02.11.2021, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, in which there is allegation of use of inappropriate language made on Suresh Parikh, who has been mentioned as a contractor in the said complaint. No medical document showing injury contacted by the present appellant-Dharmendra Choudhary is brought on record.
The grievance of the present appellant is that on 20.04.2021 at about 6:30 PM Amit Ben, Ranjeet Chakrawarthy, Babloo Vishwakarma, Govind Chakrawarthy ahead of shop of Shri Mahaver in a portion 4 attached to the shop of Suresh Parikh were carrying out some assembly of teen shed, when Suresh Parikh alongwith his son Shubham Parikh had reached the spot alongwith 3-4 other persons. Suresh Parikh who was wielding a knife started abusing and beating the complainant. He also threatened to get the shop of the complainant removed and hit him with kicks and fists. It is submitted that medical examination as is contained in Annexure-4 was conducted, but despite reporting this matter to the police authorities, no action was taken, therefore, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial court. It is submitted that trial court has rejected that application.
Though, it is mentioned in the body of the memo of appeal that appellant had sustained injuries on his left shoulder, head and other portions of the body and Police Chowki Rampur under Gorakhpur Police Station got him medically examined, but appellant has not filed any copy of medical examination report to substantiate the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant.
It is also evident that though allegation is that private respondent Suresh Parikh was wielding a knife, but admittedly no injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon were sustained by the present appellant.
Shri Dinesh Patel, learned Panel Lawyer submits that from the documents, which have been filed by the present appellant alongwith I.A. No.20663/2021, it is evident that the dispute is in the domain of continuing the appellant to discharge work of cleaning etc. taken by MPEB through private contractors for which private respondent is admittedly engaged as a contractor rather than outsourcing it to other persons. This dispute has been given a different colour so as to coerce the private respondent and create pressure on him to not to remove the appellant from contractual job. It is further submitted that appellant in his complaint to the Superintendent of Police so also in his application under 5 section 156(3) Cr.P.C has alleged that he was handcuffed by the police but has neither impleaded them as a party nor claimed any relief against them, which demonstrates that appellant has some other grudge against private respondents.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that stage of Section 200 Cr.P.C. was not resorted too. However, the fact of the matter is that once in investigation it has come on record that complicity of the private respondent was not found in the alleged offence, then the court below erred in not treating the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C to be a private complaint, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.
There are two aspects which needs to be considered. One is in term of the law laid down by Allahabad High Court in case of Hema Pathak (Smt.) vs. State of U.P.; 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 132 which provides that order of rejection of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of the case does not operate as res-judicata, therefore, filing of complaint is not barred.
Second aspect is that in case of Harikrishna Das Gupta vs. State of U.P.; 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 408 , it is held that an application under Section 156 (3) by the complainant to the Magistrate for direction to the police to investigate the case cannot be registered/treated as complaint by the Magistrate as it can be treated as complaint only when the complainant so desires and not suo moto. In the present case neither the application is in the prescribed format nor there is any prayer to treat it as a private complaint.
In case of Santosh Kumari vs. State of U.P.; 2007 CrLJ 3869 , it is held that Magistrate has no power under the aforesaid section to convert an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. into an application against the wishes of victim. Another aspect is that whether requirements of treating the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were fulfilled 6 then it is evident that there was no prayer to convert that application into that as a private complaint, and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this second limb of argument that Special Judge should have treated it as a private complaint is not made out.
Thus, when report of the police in another incident registering Crime No.0486/2021 under section 506, 294 IPC against one of the private respondent is taken into consideration, then it cannot be said that police authorities are under so much of influence of the private respondent that they do not register any case against him. Impugned order passed by learned Special Judge and the material available on record are taken into consideration then no case for interference is made out. Thus, I do not find any error in the impugned order calling any interference in this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE kafeel