Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Rajoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2015
M. Cr. C. No.2416/2015
16/12/2015
Parties through their counsel.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who
is a police officer working on the post of 'Town Inspector' at
Distt. Agar. He is aggrieved by order dated 10/03/2015 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur in Criminal
Revision No.19/2015. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
has passed the impugned order dated 10/03/2015 affirming the
order dated 04/03/2015 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sheopur by which an application
preferred by the accused/ petitioner under Sec.243(2) of
Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case reveal that a compliant case was
filed against the present petitioner in the year 1987 which was
registered against the petitioner on 10/09/1987 for offences
under Sections 323, 342, 355, 357 and 506-B of IPC. In respect
of the compliant case which was registered in the year 1987, all
attempts were made to delay the finalization of complaint case
and after recording the evidence before charge under
Sec.244(1) Cr.P.C., the charges for offences punishable under
Sections 323, 294 and 506-B of IPC were framed against the
petitioner/accused on 09/07/2002.
3. Thereafter, proceedings took place in the matter.
Evidence under Sec.246(5) of Cr.P.C. of Umashankar (PW-3)
was recorded and after permitting further cross-examination of
the prosecution witnesses, the evidence was closed on
18/02/2003. It is also an admitted fact that the counsel
appearing on behalf of the accused has categorically stated
that he does not wish further cross-examination of any of the
witnesses. The prosecution evidence was closed and the
matter was listed for recording the evidence of the accused
under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The matter was fixed for 01/0/2003.
4. The trial Court after granting an opportunity of hearing to
the defence to lead evidence has finally fixed the matter for
final arguments on 09/01/2005. The order passed by the trial
Court as well as the revisional Court reflects that various
applications were filed from time to time to delay the trial and
thereafter, an application was preferred under Sec.246 (4) of
the Cr.P.C and the said application was dismissed. The
application for cross-examining the witness was dismissed by
the trial Court on two occasions i.e. on 02/08/2004 and on
13/09/2004.
5. Not only this, similar applications were preferred again
and again and the said applications were dismissed by order
dated 31/05/2004, 02/08/2004, 13/09/2004 and 08/08/2005. No
revision was preferred against the dismissal of the aforesaid
applications. The petitioner also absconded in the matter and
did not appear before the trial Court and finally an order was
passed on 09/02/2015 in M.Cr.C.No.12297/2014 by this Court
and the same reads as under:-
"Petitioner-Pradeep Rajoriya is personally present
alongwith his counsel Shri R.K.Shrivastava.
Respondent by Shri Pawan Vijay, Advocate.
With the consent of the parties, this petition is disposed of finally with following directions:-
(i) That the petitioner-Pradeep Rajoriya shall remain present before the trial court on 25/2/2015 and on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned, he shall be immediately released on bail.
(ii) That, after release on bail, the petitioner-Pradeep Rajoriya shall regularly appear before the trial court on all the dates as may be fixed;
(iii) That the trial court shall decide the case at the earliest possibility after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
Subject to above directions, the petition stands disposed of finally.
A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for compliance and taking further steps."
6. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court vide order dated 30/03/2007 has directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of three months. Meaning thereby, inspite of repeated orders passed by this Court, the trial has not been concluded only because frivolous applications are being filed again and again by the present petitioner before the trial Court and once the application is dismissed by the trial Court, a revision is preferred before the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter, a petition under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. is being filed before this Court.
7. The present petition is arising out of an application under Sec.246 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner/accused. The impugned order reveals that similar applications claiming similar reliefs were dismissed on 31/05/2004, 02/08/2004, 13/09/2004 and 08/08/2005 and now after the bail was granted on 09/02/2015 by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.12297/2014 again a similar application has been filed and the trial Court is not being permitted to pronounce the judgment.
8. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the trial Court as well as the order passed by the revisional Court. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is not appearing before the trial Court at all. The trial Court has repeatedly issued non-bailable warrant for arrest of the present petitioner and because the petitioner is serving in the police department on the post of 'Town Inspector', he has not been produced before the trial Court.
9. Learned Government Advocate has also informed this Court that inspite of repeated letters written to the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sheopur, they are not responding in the matter. Meaning thereby, the Town Inspector who is serving in the Police Department against whom the non- bailable warrant is in existence, is roaming freely and is serving on the post of Town Inspector.
10. This Court keeping in view the aforesaid, is of the opinion that the petitioner who is a police officer, is having no respect towards the orders passed by the trial Court. The Police Department is being requested to produce the petitioner/ accused and is not producing the petitioner/accused for the reasons best known to the officers of the Police Department by whom the warrant of arrest has to be executed.
11. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 04/03/2015 and by the revisional Court dated 10/03/2015. Resultantly, the present petition preferred under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
12. The present case reflects a very sorry state of affairs, a person who is responsible for maintaining the law and order in the society, is absconding and the warrants of arrests are not being served inspite of repeated requests to the Director General of Police. Resultantly, Director General of Police is directed to ensure the execution of arrest warrant issued by the trial Court in the matter.
13. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Agar and to the Director General of Police, State of M. P. for ensuring the compliance of the arrest warrant issued by the trial Court. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial of the case, as only judgment has to be pronounced, within a period of 30 days from today. The trial Court shall also make all possible endeavor to ensure the arrest of the accused person.
14. Office is directed to sent the copy of this order to the Director General of Police as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Agar by fax as well as by registered post.
15. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be recovered by the learned trial Judge from the petitioner/accused. The cost recovered be deposited with the M. P. Legal Aid Services Authority.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej