Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maharaj Singh Rajoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:965
W.P.. No. 13 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
WRIT PETITION No. 13 of 2025
MAHARAJ SINGH RAJORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Dudawat, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate
for petitioner.
Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwaha, Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
Heard on : 10/01/2025
Pronounced on : 21/01/2025
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or direction, thereby quashing the impugned FIR of Crime No. 0969/2023 of PS. Dabra, Distt- Gwalior (Annexure- P/4) and the respondent be directed not to harass the petitioner on the basis of such FIR.
(ii) Passing any other Order or Direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Costs of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/21/2025 5:36:53 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:965 W.P.. No. 13 of 2025 2
2. It is the case of petitioner that after declaration of election of Legislative Assembly in Madhya Pradesh, District Collector, Gwalior issued an order dated 7/10/2023 under section 144 of Cr.P.C. thereby imposing certain restrictions against general public. Since service of the same upon public at large was not possible, therefore, as required by virtue of section 134(2) of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid order was notified by proclamation. A decision was taken by one of the Political Parties to hold a meeting on 21/10/2023 and also to arrange a rally. Being a party worker, petitioner, as required in terms of the restrictive order, submitted an application on 20/10/2023 seeking permission to hold meeting and rally. Respondent no.3, being the competent Authority, accorded the permission on 21/10/2023 on certain terms and conditions including condition no.24 which reads as under:-
"24& jSyh esa iqryk ngu vkfn dk dk;Zdze u fd;k tkos A "
It is the case of petitioner that the order dated 21/10/2023 was not notified by proclamation in terms of section 134(2) of Cr.P.C. In the light of permission granted by the Authorities, meeting and rally were arranged. However, some unwanted persons, set an effigy on fire, which is visible from video and photographs. It is submitted that petitioner was not present on the spot and effigy was burnt without permission and contrary to instructions issued by him. On 21/10/2023, one Ramros Sharma, submitted a written application for registration of FIR on the allegation that by order dated 7/10/2023, Collector had directed that any meeting shall be convened only after obtaining permission from SDM. The SDM had granted permission with certain conditions and by burning the effigy, petitioner and 50 other persons had disobeyed condition no.24 of the permission granted by respondent no.3. Accordingly, FIR has been registered for offence under Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/21/2025 5:36:53 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:965 W.P.. No. 13 of 2025 3 section 188 of IPC at Crime No. 969/2023.
3. Challenging the registration of FIR, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had never disobeyed the duly promulgated order of District Magistrate under section 144 of Cr.P.C, whereas the permission dated 21/10/2023 issued by respondent no.3, by which holding of meeting and rally was permitted, was never promulgated. Since the order granting permission is not required to be promulgated, therefore, any violation of the conditions of order dated 21/10/2023 would not constitute an offence. Furthermore, by virtue of section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of offence punishable under section 188 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Since as per the allegations made in the present case, petitioner is said to have disobeyed the order of District Magistrate, Gwalior issued under section 144 of Cr.P.C.., as well as, order dated 21/10/2023 issued by SDM, Dabra by which permission to hold meeting and rally was granted, therefore, cognizance can be taken by the Court only on the complaint made in writing either by District Magistrate, Gwalior or SDM, Dabra. Accordingly, it is submitted that the FIR is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
4. Heard, learned counsel for petitioner.
5. S.195 of Cr.P.C. reads as under
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence -(1) No Court shall take cognizance -
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/21/2025 5:36:53 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:965 W.P.. No. 13 of 2025 4 or of other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-
clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint :
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinarily original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate :
Provided that -
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/21/2025 5:36:53 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:965 W.P.. No. 13 of 2025 5 Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed."
From a plain reading of aforesaid section, it is clear that the bar is for the Court and not for the Police to register the FIR. Taking of cognizance by the Court and lodging of FIR are two different things which cannot be clubbed together. The only question for consideration is that once FIR is lodged and charge-sheet is filed, then whether the Court can take cognizance of the said charge-sheet or not ? Answer lies in section 2(d) of Cr.P.C, wherein the word "complaint" has been defined as under:-
"(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report Explanation - A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant"
It is clear from the explanation appended to S.2(d) that report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non cognizable, shall be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. Therefore, even if police, after concluding the investigation, files a charge- sheet, then the trial Court can consider the charge-sheet as a complaint and can treat the Investigating Officer as a complainant. Since the lodging of FIR Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/21/2025 5:36:53 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:965 W.P.. No. 13 of 2025 6 is not barred under section 195 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the same cannot be quashed, specifically when the charge-sheet can be treated as complaint.
6. So far as non proclamation of order dated 21/10/2023 issued by SDM,Dabra is concerned, the submissions made by counsel for petitioner are misconceived. Admittedly, the order issued under section 144 of Cr.P.C. was promulgated as per the provisions of section 134 of Cr.P.C. The order issued under section 144 of Cr.P.C. provided a condition that meeting and rally can be held only after obtaining permission, therefore, any permission obtained would be a part of section 144 of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the permission was issued to petitioner himself to organize the meeting and rally and only in the light of permission granted to the petitioner to convene a meeting and hold rally, the political meeting and rally was done. How the petitioner can claim that he was not aware of the order dated 21/10/2023 ? Section 134 of Cr.P.C does not require that every order has to be proclaimed, published in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, direct, and a copy thereof shall be stuck up at such place or places as may be fittest for conveying the information to such person. This provision would apply only if the order cannot be served on the person against whom it is made. Permission was granted to petitioner to hold the meeting and rally. It was in possession of petitioner and, therefore, he cannot say that it was not proclaimed and published as required under section 134(2) of Cr.P.C. For the purposes of this case, provisions of S.134(1) would apply and not 134(2) of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, since petitioner himself had taken permission from SDM, Dabra to organize a political meeting and rally, it clearly shows that he was aware of the order issued by District Magistrate, Gwalior under section 144 of Cr.P.C. Proclamation of such restrictive order is necessary to make the general public Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/21/2025 5:36:53 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:965 W.P.. No. 13 of 2025 7 aware of such order. Once the petitioner was aware of the said order and he himself had filed an application for granting permission, then he cannot say that it was not made known to the general public as required under section 134 of Cr.P.C.
7. So far as contention of counsel for petitioner that since effigy was burnt by somebody else and not by the petitioner is concerned, the same is misconceived. Undisputedly, the meeting and rally were organized by petitioner. It was the duty of petitioner to ensure that order dated 7/10/2023 issued by District Magistrate, Gwalior and 21/10/2023 issued by SDM, Dabra are not violated. Since the petitioner was the organizer and permission was granted to him to organize the political meeting and rally, then he cannot run away from his liability by saying that he had not burnt the effigy. Whether petitioner was sharing common object or not, cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. Petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 1/21/2025 5:36:53 PM