Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No.51885/2018
Santosh Tiwari
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of counsel for the parties:
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ashok Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(10.07.2019)
1. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.470/2016 by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur whereby, learned revisional Court affirmed the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur in M.J.C. No. 47/2015, thereby learned Court of C.J.M., Jabalpur accepted the closure report of Crime No.144/2014 registered at Police Station Gwarighat, Jabalpur.
2
2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that applicant filed written report in the Police Station Gwarighat, Jabalpur alleging therein that a land situated in village Polipathar, mentioned in the application belongs to the maternal grand-father Barelal, having only one daughter. After the death of the Barelal the land muted in the name of maternal grand-mother Nanhi Bai. The mother of the applicant i.e. Rammi Bai was the single child of the mother Nanhi Bai. Since 1909-10 to 1953-54, the land was recorded in the name of the maternal grand-father, thereafter, in the name of Smt. Jeenat Bi, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 24.02.1973. The applicant alleged in the complaint that it is mutated by a forged documents and again on the basis of a forged sale deed executed in favour of the Ashok Kumar, the name of the Ashok Kumar mutated in the revenue record with collusion of the Revenue Authorities and in other land name of the other persons Rajesh Minocha, Rakesh Minocha etc. mutated in the revenue records in place of the mother of the applicant, on the basis of forged documents. A Crime No. 144/2014 was registered against the person named in the complaint by the applicant under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code. Later on, the matter investigated by the Police Officer and after investigation Police Officer filed the closure report before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur who refused to accept the closure report vide order 3 dated 13.3.2015 and case diary again handed over to the Investigating Officer for further investigation, but later on, after lapse of seven months, the Police Station Gwarighat has again filed the same closure report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur issued a notice and recorded the statement of applicant on 17.10.2015, accepted the closure report vide order dated 05.12.2015 which is impugned herein.
3. The applicant also submits that being aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2015, applicant preferred a revision against that order in the Court of Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur has dismissed the revision vide order dated 30.11.2018, then applicant left with no option but to assail this order in this petition by way of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., on the ground that once the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur had not accepted the closure report vide order dated 13.03.2015, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is not having any parallel jurisdiction or power to review that order and accept the closure report vide order dated 05.12.2018. The Court of C.J.M. reviewed the same order passed in the same capacity by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur and committed illegality by accepting the closure report. There are ample material available in the case diary for taking cognizance against the person named in 4 the report. The order passed by the both Court below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Police submitted the closure report with a mala fide intention. Learned C.J.M., Jabalpur committed a gross illegality in accepting the closure report, therefore, he prays to set-aside the order passed by the both Court below.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer appeared on behalf of the respondent/State submitted that after investigation no offence is made out against any person especially mentioned in the F.I.R.. Learned C.J.M. has not reviewed its own order and not committed any illegality. The applicant has filed this petition on the wrong ground and prays for dismissal of this petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents filed along with this petition. The first contention of the counsel for the applicant is that C.J.M. vide order dated 05.12.2015 reviewed its own order dated 15.03.2015.
6. Perused the definition implied in Section 362 which read as under :-
"On bare perusal of the definition it is implied in this Section that no Court shall review its judgment, after signing the judgment or final order disposing the case finally, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."
7. In this case Court of J.M.F.C. vide order dated 13.3.2015 returned the case diary on the ground that when the F.I.R. has been 5 registered against the person named in the F.I.R., the closure report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted and refused the prayer made under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. and also directed the S.H.O. of Police Station Gwarighat that he is free to submit an application under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In this way, Court passed order in two folds, the Court did not accept the closure report and also direct the S.H.O. to file this closure report before the Court having a competent jurisdiction for that. It is alleged in the petition that after seven months, the S.H.O. of the concerned police station has again filed the closure report before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur on the same ground and Court of C.J.M., Jabalpur sent a notice to the complainant, who is the applicant herein recorded his statement on 17.10.2015 and acceptted the closure report. The copy of the statement of the applicant and copy of the order dated 05.12.2015 filed by the applicant along with this petition.
8. After perusal of the documents, it reveals that before closing the closure of the Crime No. 144/2014 registered at Police Station Gwarighat, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur issued a notice to applicant/complainant and recorded his evidence and after considering the material collected during the investigation annexed in case diary, passed a detail order and found that there is no ground 6 of taking cognizance against any person and allowed the closure report filed under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. meaning thereby, the learned C.J.M. Court, considering the material, oral evidence as well as documentary evidence collecting during investigation and also considering the statement of the petitioner/complainant herein and then found no ground to proceed further and acceptted the closure report not received its own order.
9. There is a remedy left with the applicant may file a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. if he is having any evidence. After perusal of both impugned order as well as the order passed by the revisional Court. This Court considered that applicant is left with a remedy can file a complaint, if he so desire under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In these premises, this Court does not find fit to invoke the inherent power and also found that learned C.J.M. has not reviewed the order, he is not barred to accept the closure reports. The Court is not allowed to make a sublimal coercion on the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of Police Station for filing the charge-sheet. Investigating Officer is free to investigate the matter unbiasedly and if he finds to proceed against anyone on the basis of material collected during investigation, he can file a charge-sheet under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. or can file closure report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. It is a Court to consider whether any materials available in the case diary collected during 7 investigation to take cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. against anyone or not.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant placed a reliance on the case law Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004 (4) M.P.L.J. 1 and another case law Iris Computers Limited Vs. Askari Infotech Private Limited and others, (2015) 14 SCC 399. Perused the both cases, in both cases Court below found sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant and issued the notice under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. in complaint case. Apex Courts held that Court cannot go back under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. to review its own order and dismissed the complaint, no sufficient ground found against the applicant. Facts of this case are totally different as in this case, learned counsel for the applicant submits these case laws only to substantiate that Court cannot review its own order passed earlier.
11. With the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find fit to invoke the inherent powers. Hence, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge Nitesh Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2019.07.12 17:04:36 +05'30'