Siyasharan Yadav vs Radhasharan Yadav on 11 July, 2023

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Siyasharan Yadav vs Radhasharan Yadav on 11 July, 2023

Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 11 th OF JULY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2694 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
SIYASHARAN YADAV S/O DEVI SINGH YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SECRETARY GRAM
PANCHAYAT HATHLAV R/O VILL. KHARAG TEH &
DISTT. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRATIP VISORIYA- ADVOCATE)

AND
1. RADHASHARAN YADAV S/O NIRBHAY SINGH
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRI. R/O VILL. DANGRAKUAN PS SINVAL TEH
BADONI DISTT. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. STATE OF MP THR. POLICE STATION SINAVAL
DIST. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SMT. SHARDA DEVI W/O SHRI BUDDH SINGH
YADAV OCCUPATION: SARPACH GRAM
PANCHAYAT DANGRAKUAN, TEHSIL BADONI,
DIST. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. BUDDH SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI GAYAPRASAD
YADAV R/O DANGRAKUAN TEHSIL BADONI,
DIST. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. PRAKASH JATAV S/O HARIRAM JATAV R/O
VILLAGE DANGRAKUAN, PS SINAVAL TEHSIL
BADONI, DIST. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YASH SHARMA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
Signature NotBY SHRI VIRENDRA PAL- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE)
Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 12-07-2023 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2881 of 2022
10:36:15 AM
2

BETWEEN:-
1. BUDDH SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI GAYA PRASAD
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE DANGRAKUAN
TEHSIL BADONI DISTT DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

2. SMT SHARDA DEVI W/O SHRI BUDDH SINGH
YADAV OCCUPATION: SARPANCH GRAM
PANCHAYAT DANGRAKUAN, TEHSIL BADONI,
DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA- ADVOCATE)

AND
1. RADHASHARAN YADAV S/O SHRI NIRBHAY
SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE DANGRAKUAN POLICE STATION
SINBAL TEHSIL BADONI DISTT DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
SINAVAL, DISTT. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SIYASHARAN YADAV S/O SHRI DEVI SINGH
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
KHARAG, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

4. PRAKASH JATAV S/O HARIRAM JATAV R/O
VILLAGE DANGRAKUAN, POLICE STATION
SINAVAL, TEHSIL BADONI, DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YASH SHARMA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
BY SHRI VIRENDRA PAL- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE)

Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU This common order shall govern the disposal of both the revisions.

SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 12-07-2023

10:36:15 AM Both the revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 9th 3 July, 2022 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, in Criminal Revision No.23/2022 by which learned revisional Court has directed for registration of crime against the petitioners.

In brief facts of the case are that initially on 11th July, 2016 respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 472 of IPC. Learned Magistrate after taking evidence of complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by order dated 12.9.2019 dismissed the complaint. The complainant preferred a revision against the said order and the Revisional Court by its order dated 4.9.2021 remanded the matter back. Again learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.2.2022 after elaborately discussing the evidence oral and documentary came on record dismissed the complaint of respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, he again preferred revision and the revisional Court by order dated 9th July, 2022 directed the police to register the crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others vs. V.Narayana Reddy and others, (1976) 3 SCC 252 , wherein in para 17 Apex Court has observed as under :-

"Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption: "Information to the Police and their powers to investigate"; while s. 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the heading "Of complaints to Magistrates". The power to order police investigation under s. 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by s. 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the pre cognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. 'That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under s. 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under s. 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to Signature Not Verifiedswitch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of s. 156(3). It may be Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD noted further that an order made under sub-section (3) of s. 156, is in the Signing time: 12-07-2023 10:36:15 AM nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise 4 their plenary powers of investigation under s. 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under s. 156 and ends with a report or chargesheet under s. 173. On the other hand s. 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under s. 202 to direct within the limits circumscribed by that section, an investigation "for the purpose of deciding whether or not here is sufficient ground for proceeding ". Thus the object of an investigation under s. 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him."

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and State supported the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

In the present case, learned Magistrate after taking evidence of complainant and his witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint, and therefore, the direction of learned Revisional Court in revision in the nature of 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing the police to register the FIR, thereby again switching the matter back to the pre-cognizance stage, appears to be erroneous. Accordingly, impugned order dated 9th July, 2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.23/2022 is set aside. Both the revisions are accordingly allowed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 12-07-2023 10:36:15 AM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court