Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Katare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2018
1
M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Misc. Criminal Case No.7233/2018
Hemant Katare
S/o Late Shri Satyadev Katare,
Aged about 32 years,
Member of Legislative Assembly, Ater(Bhind)
R/o 118-C, Kailash Nagar,
Bharti Niketan, Govindpura,
Bhopal.
Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Madhya Pradesh,
through P.S. Mahila Thana,
Bhopal.
2. Prinshu Singh, D/o Bharat Singh,
age Adult
R/o 40, Rajendra Nagar,
Mahila Thana, Bhopal.
Respondents
...............................................................................................................
Present: Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar.
................................................................................................................
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri Prinyankush Jain
and Shri Shantanoo Saxena, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard, Deputy Advocate General with
Shri Vivek Lakhera, Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Uttam Maheshwari, counsel for respondent No.2/
prosecutrix.
Shri Prashant Singh Senior counsel with Shri Anshul Tiwari,
counsel for intervernor Vishal Khatri.
..............................................................................................................
2
M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018
JUDGMENT
(4-10-2018)
1. This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No.16919/2018 an application for intervention dated 26.9.2018 filed on behalf of one Vishal Khatri.
2. It has been submitted hereby that this misc. criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner Hemant Katare for quashing the first information report lodged by objector Prinshu Singh for offences punishable under Sections 344, 376 (1) (n), 376(2) (n) and 506 of the I.P.C.. After lodging aforesaid first information report, objector Prinshu Singh recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 5.2.2018 supporting allegations of rape against petitioner Hemant Katare. She also appeared in a press conference, wherein she reiterated her charges. Thereafter, she wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 2.4.2018; wherein, charges of rape against petitioner Hemant Katare were repeated. Her mother Geeta Singh also lodged a first information report against petitioner Hemant Katare for offences punishable under Sections 365, 384, 386 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. on 1.2.2018. However, after all that, the objector Prinshu Singh took a somersault and filed an affidavit dated 3.5.2018 in the Court; wherein, she leveled allegation that one Vikramjeet Singh, co-accused in extortion case, which was falsely lodged against her, had visited her in Central Jail, Bhopal on 27.1.2018 along with her erstwhile Advocate Akash Telang and mentioning the name of intending intervener Vishal Khatri, a Journalist Dharmendra Pegwar and State Vice President of Bharti Janta Party, Arvind Bhadoriya had assured her that no harm would come to her, if she leveled allegation of rape against present petitioner Hemant Katare. They warned her that if she did not co-operate with 3 M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 them, she will have to remain in jail in extortion case for at least three months. They had brought the draft of a report against petitioner Hemant Katare and had asked her to copy the same in her handwriting. Therefore, she had lodged the report of rape against petitioner Hemant Katare under the influence of aforesaid persons and had also given false statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and in the press conference. She had also leveled false allegation against petitioner Hemant Katare in the letter written by her to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
3. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the intending intervener Vishal Khatri had stated that he had visited objector Prinshu Singh while she was in Central Jail at the behest of her mother Geeta Singh. When he had met her, he was accompanied by her mother Geeta Singh. Same can be verified from the video recording and records of the Central Jail. He had no role to play in entire affair, yet he and other persons have been coiled by objector Prinshu Singh in her affidavit. If the Court acts on her affidavit without giving intending intervener an opportunity to assist the Court, all legal options before him would be foreclosed and he would not be able to obtain any legal redress against objector Prinshu Singh from the Courts of law; therefore, it has been prayed that intending intervener Vishal Khatri be joined as an intervener in the matter and allowed to assist the Court in reaching a just conclusion in the present case and establishing his innocence before the Court.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Hemant Katare and learned counsel for objector Prinshu Singh on the other hand have opposed the application. They have submitted that the intending intervener is trying to join the proceedings in the Court in order to protract the disposal of the case for political ends. If the intending intervener is of the view that objector Prinshu Singh has leveled false allegations against him, he is free to take such action against her as is available to him under the law. His presence before the Court is not at all 4 M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 necessary for just and fair decision of instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of the Court to paragraph No.2 of the affidavit and has contended that objector Prinshu Singh has leveled no direct allegation against intending intervener Vishal Khatri. His name has been mentioned only at one place, where objector Prinshu Singh has stated that Vikramjeet Singh had told her that Vikramjeet Singh, Vishal Khatri and Dharmendra Pegwar had gone to meet the objector; however, there is no allegation that either Vishal Khatri actually met her or influenced her in any manner; therefore, it has been prayed that the application for intervention be dismissed.
5. On perusal of relevant record and due consideration of rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this application for intervention must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:
6. Petitioner Hemant Katare, who is sitting member of Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh, had lodged a first information report against objector Prinshu Singh on 24.1.2018 under Sections 384, 388 and 120-B of the I.P.C.. Objector Prinshu Singh was arrested in connection with aforesaid case and was lodged in Central Jail, Bhopal. From Central Jail, Bhopal, she wrote a letter to the D.I.G, Bhopal; whereon, a first information report was lodged against present petitioner Hemant Katare under Sections 342, 376(1)(n), 376(2)(n) and 506 of the I.P.C. This misc. criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the aforesaid first information report lodged by objector Prinshu Singh against petitioner Hemant Katare. After leveling allegations of rape against petitioner Hemant Katare in the first information report, in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., in the press conference and in the letter to the Chief Justice of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as stated above, objector Prinshu Singh filed an affidavit dated 3.5.2018 in the Court, retracting all allegations made against the petitioner and alleging that she had leveled those allegations at the 5 M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 behest of co-accused in extortion case, Vikramjeet Singh and Advocate Akash Telang in order to be released on bail in the extortion case.
8. Paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 of the affidavit dated 3.5.2018 are relevant for our purpose, which read as hereunder:
(i) A false case of extortion was registered against myself on 24.1.2018 and I was sent to judicial custody on 25.1.2018. On 27.1.2018, I was in Central Jail, Bhopal and an advocate came to meet me; the advocate was Mr. Aakash Telang, whom I saw and met the first time and he was accompanied by two others, one of whom was Vikramjeet Singh, about whom I was aware is also a co-accused along with me. I was also told that another journalist, Dharmendra Pegwar was waiting in the Jailer's office.
(ii) I was shocked to see that a person co-accused with me is freely moving and is also visiting me in the Central Jail Bhopal, which convinced me that they all are highly influential people who could help me in this matter. Upon expressing my awe to see him roam freely, Vikramjeet Singh told me that I need not worry about anything as he said, must be evident with his approach and influence. He said that all of them Vikramjeet Singh, Vishal Khatri and Dharmendra Pegwar have come to meet me after speaking to BJP leader and party's state Vice-President Arvind Bhadoriya, whom they referred to as 'Bhaisahab' or 'AB' and he has asked them to convey to me that I will be given all the support. I saw that Vikramjeet Singh was spoken to with respect and familiarity by the jail officials in a way that it seemed as if they were obeying him out of obligation.
9. It may be noted that objector Prinshu Singh has mentioned the name of intending intervener Vishal Khatri only at one place in the 6 M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 entire affidavit. Name of Vishal Khatri is found mentioned only in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit. In paragraph No.2 objector Prinshu Singh has deposed to the effect that co-accused Vikramjeet Singh had told her that she need not worry about anything at all. Vikramjeet Singh further said that his approach and influence must be evident to her. Vikramjeet Singh also said that all of them namely Vikramjeet Singh, Vishal Khatri and Dharmendra Paigwar had gone to meet her after speaking to state Vice President of Bhartiya Janta Party, Arvind Bhadoriya. Vikramjeet Singh further stated that Arvind Badhoriya has asked them to convey to Prinshu Singh that she will be given all support.
That is about all that appears in the affidavit with regard to intending intervener Vishal Khatri. It is obvious from above that objector Prinshu Singh has not leveled any direct allegation against intending intervener in the paragraph No.2. All she is saying that Vikramjeet Singh had told her that Arvind Bhadhoriya had asked Vikramjeet Singh, Vishal Khatri and Dharmendra Pegwar to assure her that she will be given all support. She does not state that Vishal Khatri had actually met or influenced her. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that aforesaid reference is derogatory to intending intervener Vishal Khatri and in some way maligns him, he is free to take recourse to law against objector Prinshu Singh or co-accused Vikramjeet Singh in such manner, as is available to him under the law.
10. At any rate, aforesaid issue is not at all relevant for the purpose of present petition filed by petitioner Hemant Katare for quashing the first information report in respect of offence of rape. Joining intending intervener Vishal Khatri in the present case would serve no purpose other than to confuse issues and protract the trial. If a parallel inquiry is conducted in the present case in respect of allegations allegedly leveled by objector Prinshu Singh against intending intervener Vishal Khatri, it would be an abuse of process of Court and would unnecessarily complicate the matter.
7 M.Cr.C. No.7233/201811. In aforesaid view of the matter, this application for intervention being I.A. No.16919/2018, deserves to be dismissed.
12. Consequently, I.A. No.16919/2018 is dismissed.
13. The intending intervener shall be free to avail such remedy in this regard as is available to him under the law.
(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD Date: 2018.10.04 03:04:57 -07'00' 8 M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Misc. Criminal Case No.7233/2018 Hemant Katare Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ORDER Post for: 10.2018.
(C.V. Sirpurkar) JUDGE 9 M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.7233/2018 (HEMANT KATARE Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER) Order passed separately, singed and dated. List the matter on 6.10.2018.
(C.V. Sirpurkar) JUDGE