Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vicky @ Vikash Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2014
(Vicky @ Vikash Soni Vs. State of M.P.) 1 CRR 420/2014
17.11.2014
Shri Ramkesh Singh, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Mukund Bharadwaj, Public Prosecutor, for the
respondent/ State.
During the course of arguments on I.A.No.4607/14, with the consent of the parties heard finally.
The prosecution story just necessary for the disposal of this petition is that on 18.06.2011 at about 4 P.M., complainant Ramkishore and his wife Reeta Gautam were travelling to Chinnore by motorcycle No.M.P.07/ML 9404. Near Khedapulia a motorcycle Bajaj Discover No.M.P.33/1398 overtaking the complainant obstructed the complainant's motorcycle. Two persons were on the motorcycle. On the gun point, they extorted all the ornaments from the wife of the applicant worth Rs.1,20,000/- and the ornaments and a cell phone kept in the hand bag was also snatched. On the report of the complainant Crime No.65/11 for the offence under Section 392/34 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.
On behalf of the applicant Vicky @ Vikash Soni, it is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed against the accused Dharmendra Kushwah @ D.K. along with Sonu. Later the name of applicant Vicky @ Vikash Soni was added.
As per the prosecution story, on the basis of the memorandum of accused Sonu dated 13.03.2012 applicant Vicky (Vicky @ Vikash Soni Vs. State of M.P.) 2 CRR 420/2014 @ Vikash Soni has been made as accused. The applicant Vicky @ Vikash Soni is running a shop in the name of Gayatri Jewellers, Kheda Bazar, Majduronwali Gali, Jhansi. He purchased the extorted ornaments for Rs.80,000/- from the accused. The learned Special Judge for M.P.D.V.P.K. Act, Dabra, Gwalior, framed charge against the petitioner under Section 392 read with Section 397 and Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K Act on 28.04.2014.
On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Two unknown miscreants alleged to have committed the offence includes accused Dharmendra from whom Rs.1300/- was seized and from accused Sonu Vanskar, Rs.1000/- and a katta were seized. But, the applicant is innocent. Therefore, the impugned order of framing charge under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K Act be set-aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the order dated 28.04.2014 is proper.
Status report is received on 30.10.2014 show that after investigation charge-has been filed. Keeping in view the evidence available in the record, charge for offence under Section 411 and 412 or 413 IPC or at the most under Section 214 of IPC may be attracted. But as the petitioner is not directly involved in the robbery, the charge framed against the petitioner (Vicky @ Vikash Soni Vs. State of M.P.) 3 CRR 420/2014 Vicky @ Vikash Soni seems to be erroneous.
With the above observations, order dated 28.04.2014 is hereby set-aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to frame proper charge against the accused petitioner Vicky @ Vikash Soni.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(S.K. PALO)
mani Judge