Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan Swaroop Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2020
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 Crr 6041/2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr. Rev. 6041/2019
(Narayan Swarop Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P. )
Gwalior Dt. 2/3/2020
Shri Ram Krishna Pathak, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Revisional powers of this court are invoked u/Ss. 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 18/10/2019 by which
charge u/Sec. 202 IPC in S.T. 250/2018 pending before 6 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) has been framed.
Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of
admission.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner at the relevant
point of time when death of an inmate in jail took place was working as
compounder who had given first aid to the injured/deceased inmate who had
been brought to the dispensary in the jail whereafter the injured was shifted
to J.A. Groups of Hospital of Gwalior where he succumbed to injuries.
It is submitted that petitioner was not named in the FIR and has been
named subsequently on the strength of the finding rendered in the judicial
enquiry conducted by JMFC, Gwalior u/s. 176 Cr.P.C. It is thus submitted
that offence punishable u/S. 202 IPC of intentional omission to give
information of offence by person bound to inform has not been committed by
petitioner.
From bare perusal of the judicial enquiry report which is part of the
petition reveals that petitioner was posted as compounder in the jail
dispensary where the injured/deceased was brought for first aid treatment.
2 Crr 6041/2019
Instead of disclosing about injuries sustained by injured/deceased the
petitioner in his capacity as compounder gave misleading report that injured
has suffered burn injuries. The conduct of petitioner was found to be
suspicious by the Judicial Magistrate and on the basis of material collected
by prosecution prima facie offence punishable u/S. 202 IPC appears to be
made out.
The petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Apex Court in
V.L.Treas Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2001 SC 953) and Dinesh Kumar
Kalidas Patel Vs. State of Gujrarat (AIR 2018 SC 951) which in the
considered opinion of this court are of no avail to petitioner as they relate to
the offence punishable u/S. 201 IPC and not 202 IPC.
In view of above, the material and evidence collected by prosecution
reveals a strong suspicion against petitioner of having committed offence
punishable u/Sec. 202 IPC and therefore framing of charge by learned trial
judge in the said set of facts cannot be found fault with.
Thus, for want of any illegality or impropriety reflected in the
impugned order, no interference is warranted in exercise of limited revisional
jurisdiction u/S.397/401 Cr.P.C. of this court.
Accordingly, revision fails and is dismissed, sans cost.
(Sheel Nagu)
DHANANJAY Judge
BUCHAKE
2020.03.03
12:56:58 +05'30' (Bu)