Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2020
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018
(Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Gwalior, dated : 21.01.2020
Shri Brajesh Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Anmol Khedkar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri V.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sumit Shrivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on I.A. No.2333/2019, an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence.
The present application filed at the instance of appellant No.2-Janved Singh Yadav seeking temporary suspension on the ground of marriage of his niece namely Ku.Nisha Yadav.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submitted that he filed the instant application on 28.03.2019 seeking temporary suspension on the ground that his niece was going to be married on 21.04.2019 at Village Eagui, District Bhind and appellant No.2 is her uncle and want to perform Kanyadan ritual, therefore, he may be given 15 days suspension from jail sentence, so that he may go to his village and perform Kanyadan. Marriage card of his niece namely Ku. Nisha is also attached in support of his submission.
3. This Court directed the respondent/State to verify the said fact vide order dated 03.04.2019 and matter was placed on 12.04.2019 (marriage to be solemnized on 20.04.2019). On 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) 12.04.2019 a report submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Aswar, District Bhind, which indicates that no such marriage is going to be taken place and appellant No.2 got prepared false marriage card to get temporary suspension. Sarpanch namely Mahipal Singh Yadav of Gram Panchayat Jalalpura, Janpad Panchayat, District Bhind in his certificate stated the fact that appellant No.2 Janved Singh does not have any brother and Ku.Nisha is daughter of Shishupal Yadav and Shishupal Yadav has no relation with appellant No.2-Janved Singh.
4. Ku. Nisha also allegedly made a statement that appellant No.2-Janved Singh has no relationship with her family. Interestingly, one person Vijaypal Singh S/o Gabbar Singh, R/o Gram Panchayat Jalalpura (later on it was found that he is the complainant in the present case) also attested the said fact by way of his statement and certificate, which are part of record.
5. Station House Officer, Police Station Aswar submitted the report dated 10.04.2019 to the office of Additional Advocate General, High Court of M.P. Bench Gwalior, in which he mentioned all these facts and matter was placed on 15.04.2019.
6. It is further submitted that grand father of Ku.Nisha and grand father of appellant No.2 Janved Singh are the real brothers and from childhood of Nisha, appellant No.2- Janved Singh was 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) taking care of Ku.Nisha and expressed her desire to perform Kanyadan ritual. An affidavit of Ku. Nisha was also filed in which she specifically stated the fact that appellant No.2 Janved Singh was his uncle (rkÅth) and very early, he adopted her and wanted to perform her Kanyadan. She specifically stated the fact that at the time of her marriage, some police personnels came her house and taken signature over a blank paper. She categorically denied the fact about her earlier statement that appellant No.2 Janved Singh is not her relative.
7. After receiving such affidavit alongwith her adhar card, it was imperative for this court to take fresh version of Station House Officer, Police Station Aswar, District Bhind, therefore, this court directed the concerned Station House Officer to submit his affidavit regarding state of affairs. On 25.04.2019 and 03.07.2019, he sought time and filed his affidavit on 08.07.2019, in which he pleaded the fact that at the time of verification of fact that wrong information regarding marriage has been provided by the Sarpanch Mahipal Singh and Vijaypal Singh (complainant in the present case).
8. Now he took the statements of Bahaddur Singh S/o Prem Singh, Vijay Singh S/o Bhan Singh and both have stated the fact that appellant No.2 is related to Shishupal and Ku. Nisha as well as the fact that Shishupal and appellant No.2-Janved are cousins. In 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) absence of appellant No.2-Janved Singh, Kanyadan has been performed by Sonu @ Arvind Yadav. Genealogical table (oa'ko`{k) duly attested by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat was also preferred, in which it is demonstrated that grand father of Shishupal namely Premsingh and grand father of appellant No.2-Janved Singh namely Ramnath Singh were real brothers and Sonu is son of appellant No.2 Janved Singh, therefore, Sonu as brother of Ku.Nisha performed Kanyadan.
9. On 18.07.2019 when this fact came before this Court then this Court directed Station House Officer, Police Station Aswar to inform the Sarpanch Mahipal Singh and complainant Vijaypal Singh to submit their affidavits about their source of information by which they furnished wrong information. Court prima facie expressed the opinion that personal liberty of an individual cannot be compromised by mischief as demonstrated by Sarpanch Mahipal and complainant- Vijaypal. Therefore, matter is placed on 19.08.2019 and 03.09.2019. On these dates affidavit of Mahipal Singh was placed on record.
10. In affidavit, Sarpanch Mahipal Singh accepted the fact that Station House Officer inquired him and he gave certificate that Ku. Nisha is not relative of appellant No.2-Janved Singh because he did not have any correct information at his disposal and if he furnished 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) any wrong information, then he extended apology for the same.
11. Interestingly, complainant Vijaypal has been represented through his counsel, but did not file any affidavit whereas Sarpanch Mahipal filed his affidavit as referred above. This Court directed the office to issue notice to the Sarpanch Mahipal Singh, so that he may also file his reply if advised so. But on 16.10.2019 counsel who was appearing for the complainant Vijaypal informed this court that now onward he is not appearing for complainant, but he will appear for Sarpanch Mahipal Singh. Therefore, to give another opportunity to the complainant Vijaypal, this court directed the respondent/State to intimate the complainant Vijaypal about the alleged misstatement made by him and about the reply, if any, he intends to file before this court through his counsel and matter was placed on the next date of hearing.
12. On 15.11.2019, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 informed this court that notice was issued to the complainant Vijaypal through registered A.D. mode, but he is avoiding his presence before this court. Since registered notice was issued to him and when he was earlier presented before this court and knowing the consequences well, still opted to remain absent and therefore, as per High Court Rules and Orders his service treated as deemed service. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) was granted to the counsel for the Sarpanch Mahipal and Shri Saxena, Senior Counsel is directed to inform the complainant about the pending matter which was placed on 26.11.2019 on next date of hearing.
13. On 02.12.2019 matter again taken up for hearing in which complainant Vijaypal did not appear.
14. Therefore, matter is taken up today i.e. 21.01.2020. Even otherwise as per judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Morarka Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1495, in which complainant has limited role to oppose bail application/suspension, but since here the case was tampering with the Administration of Justice and Rule of Law, therefore, this court made all efforts to serve the complainant and from the record, it appears that complainant Vijaypal Singh was again served on 16.08.2019 (report attached) and Sarpanch Mahipal Singh also served. Affidavit dated 17.08.2019 filed by the Station House Officer concerned indicates that Sarpanch Mahipal and complainant Vijaypal were duly served. Rojnamcha Sanha is also attached. Statements of Karu @ Dharmendra S/o Janved Singh Yadav, Sonu @ Arvind S/o Janved Singh Yadav, Bhagwandas S/o Premsingh Yadav, Ramsiya S/o Ghanaram Yadav, Devendra Singh S/o Narayan Singh, Tilak Singh S/o Premsingh Yadav, Ramkes S/o 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) Ramswaroop, Ajab Singh S/o Sarnam Singh Yadav, Madhav Pujari S/o Ramsiya Yadav, Baikunt S/o Sarnam Singh Yadav were also attached with the report and tenor and texture of all these statements indicate that daughter of Shishupal namely Ku. Nisha married on 21.04.2019 and Kanyadan was performed by son of appellant No.2 Janved Singh namely Sonu @ Arvind. It was also specifically submitted that appellant No.2 Janved Singh and Shishupal Singh are the members of same family and relatives to each other.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 Janved Singh has submitted that by the efflux of time and due to incorrect facts presented by the Station House Officer concerned and Sarpanch Mahipal and complainant Vijaypal, appellant No.2 Janved Singh could not get temporary suspension for attending the marriage of his niece Ku. Nisha. This amounts to tampering the Administration of Justice and Rule of Law because by their mis-statements, this court did not release the appellant No.2 Janved Singh on temporary suspension to participate in the marriage and by the time, their mischief came to the fore, marriage ceremony was already over and now in fact, seven months has passed since then.
16. It is further submitted that act and intention of miscreants i.e. Sarpanch Mahipal and complainant Vijaypal tinkered with the personal liberty of appellant No.2 Janved Singh. Therefore, suitable 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) action or direction may be taken so that personal liberty of an individual be protected.
17. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that initially Station House Officer concerned took statements of Sarpanch Mahipal and Vijaypal who provided wrong information but Vijaypal himself was the complainant in the present case, therefore, complainant did not provide correct information. There was no ill motive of Station House Officer concerned as he filed two affidavits on 08.07.2019 and 17.08.2019 and clarified the position.
18. Learned Senior Counsel for the Sarpanch Mahipal tried to defend the case and submitted that complainant did not have any information about the relationship of appellant No.2-Janved and Shishupal. Therefore, he made wrong statement, but since it was bonafide mistake and because of his inadequate information, his act may be condoned in the interest of justice.
19. Initially complainant Vijay Singh was represented by the same counsel who represents Sarpanch Mahipal Singh Yadav, but after sometime despite intimation, he did not appear in person or through his counsel.
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits and documents available on record. 9
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
21. In the case in hand, appellant No.2 Janved Singh Yadav sought temporary suspension for 15 days on the ground of marriage of his niece Ku. Nisha. From genealogy table (oa'ko`{k or Family Tree) placed by the Station House Officer, Police Station Aswar, District Bhind, it is apparently clear that appellant No.2 Janved Singh Yadav and Shishupal Singh Yadav are cousins (brothers) and therefore, information provided by the appellant No.2 was not incorrect. Even otherwise in rural areas, cousins are also considered in family-fold and treated as part of original family. Therefore, appellant No.2 was not taking the benefit of temporary suspension on false pretext and marriage card depicted correct facts.
22. However, when this court asked the Station House Officer, concerned to verify the said fact, he placed incorrect fact mainly because of false information provided by the complainant and Sarpanch Mahipal Singh Yadav. Therefore, his application for temporary suspension was based upon correct fact, but misled by Sarpanch Mahipal Singh and complainant Vijalpal Singh. Later on, Mahipal Singh Yadav filed an affidavit in which he simply pleaded ignorance about the relationship of appellant No.2 and Shishupal Singh. Complainant Vijaypal Singh did not even care to file any affidavit as per direction given by this Court or even to represent himself or through his counsel before this court. It appears that both 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) the persons thought that their mischief is sufficient to deny temporary suspension to the appellant No.2 and they might be enjoying peevish pleasure. Their acts, statements and intention amount to interference in the Administration of Justice and Rule of Law because their misstatements (and deliberate omission to state correct facts) denied, valuable right of appellant No.2 to be considered for temporary suspension on the ground of marriage of his niece in which he had to perform Kanyadan.
23. Any order, over application for temporary suspension of sentence, on merits may or may not have ensued the release of appellant No.2 automatically, but it was the duty of the Station House Officer, Police Station Aswar, District Bhind and statutory authority (now even Constitutional) like Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, to take care of the people whom they are representing. It is highly improbable that Sarpanch Mahipal of Gram Panchayat does not know the exact relationship of people living in his area and it was the fault on the part of Station House Officer that he tried to verify the fact from the complainant of the case because no complainant would like other party i.e. accused to get any benefit of suspension of sentence. Therefore, their falsehood and misstatements virtually have trappings of contempt of court and obstruction in the Administration of Justice (and Rule of Law) and, 11 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) therefore, his act amounts to an act unbecoming all the Sarpanch because of misconduct he performed.
24. One more fact deserves consideration is the fact that son of appellant No.2 Janved Singh Yadav ultimately performed Kanyadan ritual which itself shows that both the families are close and related to each other. Therefore, valuable right of consideration of the appellant for temporary suspension got defeated because of conduct of the Sarpanch Manipal Singh Yadav and complainant Vijay Pal Singh. Both are hands in glove because of their conduct displayed before this Court. Complainant Vijay Singh engaged the counsel initially. Later on same was engaged by the Sarpanch Mahipal and Vijaypal Singh ran away, as if he does not have any inkling of proceedings. Their conduct before this court also deserves deprecation and condemnation.
25. Conclusively, application for temporary suspension is dismissed as rendered infructuous because by now, marriage is over, but personal liberty of a individual cannot be sacrificed at the alter of whims and fancy of Sarpanch or complainant. It is the duty of police authorities to ensure the correct verification report from the locality/vicinity of the accused, if any, information is sought regarding marriage, bereavement (death) or any other ceremonies for which any application for temporary suspension is moved on 12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) behalf of the appellant.
26. In the considered opinion of this court, suitable action or direction against the Sarpanch Mahipal Singh Yadav and complainant Vijaypal Singh is need of the hour, so that sanctity of the Administration of Justice and Rule of Law be maintained.
27. The Collector, District Bhind and Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bhind are duty bound to take deep look into the controversy and initiate appropriate proceedings against the Sarpanch Mahipal Singh, Gram Panchayat Jalalpur, Gohad, District Bhind under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and ensure the conclusion of proceedings against them within a period of three months after affording an appropriate opportunity of hearing, if required in the case to the concerned person and to intimate the court about the outcome.
28. Beside that Superintendent of Police, Bhind is also duty bound to inquire into the matter and after inquiry or investigation as the case may be, if commission of any cognizable offence is made out, then it would be the duty of concerned authority to register the case against Sarpanch Mahipal Singh and complainant Vijaypal Singh and any other person who may be instrumental in providing false information regarding relationship of appellant No.2 Janved Singh and Shishupal Singh and after investigation, proper follow up 13 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.1312/2018 (Karu and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) action shall be ensured against them.
29. Office is directed to send immediately a copy of this order to the Collector District Bhind, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bhind as well as Superintendent of Police, District Bhind to comply the order and submit a report within a stipulated period.
30. Application for temporary suspension vide I.A. No.2333/2019 is dismissed as rendered infructuous.
31. List the matter on 7th February, 2020 for further orders.
(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2020.02.04 19:09:45 +05'30'