Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Kurmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J
Cr.A.No.173/2007
Raj Kumar Kurmi
Vs.
State of M.P.
=================
Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Singh, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
==================================
ORDER
Reserved on 18/07/2019 Passed on 29/07/2019 This Criminal Appeal under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the observation made by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Sagar in Para No.53 of the judgement dated 26/12/2006 passed in Special Case No.4/01, whereby learned Special Judge directed to issue notice to the appellant under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. as to why proceedings should not be registered against him and Jay Kumar Jain under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. as it appeared that they had given false statement before the Court in Special Case No.4/01 to protect D.N. Shukla, the accused of that case.
2. Brief facts which are relevant for disposal of the case are that appellant Raj Kumar Kurmi lodged a report before Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Sagar against D.N. Shukla, the then Manager of District Industries Center averring that he had demanded Rs.200/- for registration for opening a Dairy. On that Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Sagar after preliminary enquiry registered Crime No.8/2001 and arranged a trap and caught D.N. Shukla red-handed for taking bribe and also seized Rs.200/- from his possession. After investigation, Special Police Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 31/07/2019 19:09:01 2 Establishment (Lokayukta) Sagar filed charge-sheet before I Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar against D.N. Shukla. On that Special Case No.4/01 was registered. Learned trial Court framed the charge against D.N. Shukla for the offence punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and tried the case against him. During trial appellant, Raj Kumar Kurmi gave statements before the Court as a prosecution witness. After the trial, learned Special Judge vide its judgment dated 26/12/2006 found D.N. Shukla guilty for the aforesaid offences. Learned ASJ in Para 51 & 52 of its judgments also held that it appeared that appellant and Jay Kumar Jain gave false statement before the Court to protect DN. Shukla accused of the case for unknown reasons, so notice be issued against the appellant Raj Kumar Kurmi and Jay Kumar Jain under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. as to why action should not be taken against them under Section 344 after registering summary proceeding and directed to register separate MJC for that proceedings. Being aggrieved from that findings of the Court appellant filed this appeal.
3. Section 341 of Cr.P.C. under which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant reads as under:-
Section 341. Appeal.
(1) Any person on whose application any Court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195, and the superior Court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or, as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former Court might have made under section 340, and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly.
(2) An order under this section, and subject to any such order, an order under section 340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision.
4. Which shows that appeal shall lie against the order by which Court refused to file a complaint or directed to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. While in this case learned Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 31/07/2019 19:09:01 3 ASJ had not directed to file a complaint against appellant on the observation against which appellant filed this appeal. The Court only expressed that for unknown reasons appellant and Jay Kumar Jain gave false statement before the Court to protect DN. Shukla, the accused of the case, so notice be issued against the appellant Raj Kumar Kurmi and Jay Kumar Jain under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. as to why action should not be taken against them under Section 344 after registering summary proceeding and separate MJC be registered for that proceedings.
5. The decision of filing complaint or taking action against appellant under summary proceedings is yet to be taken by the trial Court. That decision would be taken by the trial Court after hearing the applicant in that MJC. So this appeal is premature.
6. Hence this appeal is dismissed without commenting on merits with the liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate petition in case any adverse order is passed by the trial Court against the appellant in that MJC.
7. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to trial Court for information.
C.c. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) JUDGE as/-
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 31/07/2019 19:09:01