Aruna @ Avni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2023

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Aruna @ Avni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2023

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                  ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2521 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ARUNA @ AVNI D/O MAHESH KUMAR BAIRAGI, AGED
                           ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD D.K.N
                           TEHSIL JAWAD DIST NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI RAJESH YADAV - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THR P.S. NEEMUCH CANT DIST NEMEUC
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (MS. HARSHLATA SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

The present revision is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by 1st ASJ, Neemuch in case no.5/2021, whereby, the application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C has been rejected.

2. According to the prosecution story in short is that a written complaint has been lodged by the complainant Surendra Kaushik stating that at present he has been posted in Rajasthan Judicial Services at Dataramgarh District Sikar Rajasthan. 1-1/2 years ago the present applicant sent friend required from her Signature Not Verified facebook ID and started contacting the complainant through media platform.

Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 07/07/2023 6:32:56 PM 2

Last year the complainant was working in District Dewai, Madhopur (Rajasthan), at the time in September, 2019, the present applicant came and requested to visit the Ganesh Temple of Sawai, Madhopur describing herself as a reputed advocate of Neemuch. The present applicant is a female advocate due to which complainant instructed his staff to provide facilities for visiting the Ganesh Temple. The present applicant took his mobile number from his staff, thereafter, the present applicant started talking on the telephone but the complainant refused so in the second week of January, 2020 the present applicant contacted the complainant on the telephone and started pressurizing him to talk to her everyday but the complainant refused to take on multiple occasions. The applicant started threatening by saying that her brother Deepak has Rasukath in Rajasthan and with the help of him, she will get the complainant fired from his job. The applicant has tried to affect complainant's social prestige and reputation. The applicant demanded one crore rupees and house and if her demand is not fulfilled, she will take false action against the complainant. Upon which FIR has been registered at PS Neemuch Cant. on 05.11.2020 at crime no.546/2020 against the applicant under section 384, 385, 389, 420, 468, 34 of IPC.

3. The applicant filed an application under section 91 of Cr.P.C for providing her a transcript CD which was seized by the prosecution.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant while assailing the said order, placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Nityra Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy reported in (2018) 2 SCC 93.

5. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. The trial Court has observed that the CD and its transcript was part of the charge Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 07/07/2023 6:32:56 PM 3 sheet as Ex.P/4 and the applicant has never raised any objection that the aforesaid document is not part of the charge sheet, when the charge sheet was filed. Even when the case was committed for the competent Court, she did not make any complaint that she has not received the copy of the CD. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court on 22.01.2021 and the charges were framed on 11.02.2021. Thus, it cannot be held that the applicant did not receive copy of the CD transcript Exb.P/4.

6. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the facts of the case. In the said case, it was held that the documents which are not part of the charge sheet can also be directed to be summoned if they are having crucial bearing on the issue of framing of the charge. In the present case, the CD transcript was already supplied to the petitioner and she never demanded copy of the same at the time of filling of the charge sheet, framing of the charge and committal order. There is no illegality and juridical error in the impugned order. Hence. the revision petition stands dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Sourabh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 07/07/2023 6:32:56 PM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court