Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanashyam Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFOREHON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 6403 of 2022
Between:-
GHANASHYAM MISHRA S/O LATE ANANT RAM
MISHRA , AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O ATRAR CHOWKI, PARARIYA,
THANA- SATAI, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.C.MALLIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. MANOJ MISHRA S/O LATE SHOVARAM MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: POLITICAL
LEADER AND AGRICULTURE
3. KHITIJ MISHRA S/O LATE SHOVARAM MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: POLITICAL
LEADER AND AGRICULTURE
BOTH 2 AND 3 R/O ATRAR CHOWKI, PARARIYA,
THANA- SATAI, DISTRICT- CHHATARPUR, (M.P.)
AT PRESENT- NEAR TIK, SATAI ROAD
CHHATARPUR, THANA- CIVIL LINE
CHHATARPUR,DISTRICT- CHHATARPUR (M.P)
4. D.P. DWIVEDI, S.D.M. AT THE TIME TEHSIL
CHHATAR PUR R/O NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE,
SATAI ROAD THANA- CIVIL LINE DISTRICT-
CHHATARPUR, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT SHARMA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by non-registration of the complaint case (UNCR 72/2021) filed by the petitioner.
In the petition, the allegations have been made against the Judl.Magistrate Ist Class, Chhatarpur that she in a capricious manner is writing the order sheets and adopting delaying tactics to safeguard the respondents and to frustrate the petitioner's claim. It is further stated that learned JMFC in a fabricated manner is giving date after date for hearing just to harass the petitioner and to save the 2 respondents who are political leaders of the area and SDM, Chhatarpur.
During the arguments in the Court itself Mr. D.C.Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner has also made oral allegation that the learned Judge is obliged by the SDM and the political leaders, hence, she is not passing any order on the complaint of the petitioner and keeping it pending.
A perusal of the order sheets filed by the petitioner/complainant shows that complaint was filed on 03.02.2021 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. On the same day statement of complainant and one witness were recorded. Thereafter the matter was fixed for recording of statement of two other witnesses on the request of complainant himself, who were examined on 09.04.2021 and the matter was fixed for argument on charge on 01.05.2021. Thereafter, due to limited hearing instructions given by the higher Courts, looking to the Covid-19 period, the matter was not taken up and fixed for arguments on charge on 27.10.2021, on which date an application under Section 45 of Evidence Act was filed by the complainant along with his written arguments on charge. On the next date, i.e. on 13.12.2021, time was sought by the learned counsel for the complainant for arguments on the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The matter was, therefore, listed for hearing arguments on the application under Section 45 of Evidence Act on 31.01.2022. However, in view of the instructions of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur dated 12.01.2022, looking to the surge in the covid patients, the cases which are pending for three years or older were only taken up, and the present matter was fixed for 15.02.2022 under the same head. However, on 15.02.2022, counsel for the complainant himself was absent and the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, on 04.03.2022, written arguments were submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to his application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act along with an application for early hearing. The matter was thereafter fixed for hearing on the said application on 26.03.2022 i.e. tomorrow.
From a perusal of order sheets, it does not appear that learned JMFC is deliberately delaying the case of the petitioner, rather it is seen that petitioner/complainant himself is filing application one after another and some delay has been caused due to instructions from the higher courts for taking limited number of cases looking to the surge in the covid-19 patients during the third 3 wave. The matter is already fixed tomorrow for hearing the arguments. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the learned Judge was trying to favour or save the respondents. For making false and frivolous allegations against the learned JMFC, Chhatarpur, a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) is imposed on the counsel for petitioner to be deposited online in the National Defence Fund (NDF) within a period of fifteen days from today, and copy of its receipt be also filed in the Registry.
In view of aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE jk Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by JITIN KUMAR CHOURASIA Date: 2022.03.28 14:55:35 IST