Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Mohan Nayak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2019
Author: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
Bench: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Single Bench:-Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishnu Pratap Singh
Chauhan
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.12211/2015
Surendra Mohan Nayak
-V/s-
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
..............................................................................................
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ambar Mishra, counsel for respondent no.2.
Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent no.1/State.
..............................................................................................
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2236/2016
Dinesh Kumar Acharya
-V/s-
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
.............................................................................................
Shri Suyash Tripathi, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent no.1/State.
..............................................................................................
ORDER
(18-09-2019)
1. Since both of the aforesaid miscellaneous criminal cases filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the common order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Katni while invoking the 2 revisional jurisdiction in Criminal Revision No.11/2012 whereby setting aside the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Court of JMFC, Katni in unregistered private complaint (Vinod Chatuvedi vs. Surendra Mohan Nayak and others), therefore, both petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions in short are that applicant Surendra Mohan Nayak along with other co-accused persons lodged a written complaint at police station, Katni against respondent no.2 registered as Crime No.790/2007 and after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent no.2 along with other co-accused. The respondent no.2 who was accused in Crime No.790/2007 submitted a complaint before the Court of JMFC, Katni against the applicants as well as other persons Dr. R.S. Kakodiya, Professor K.K. Verma and Vijay Sharma. Learned Court of JMFC on the basis of application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed the police for inquiry and called for the report. Station House Officer of Police Station, Kotwali, District Katni submitted a report dated 13.09.2011 (Annexure-P/4) in the Court of JMFC, Katni in connection with complaint filed by respondent no.2 Vinod Chaturvedi and had not registered the case against the applicants and other persons by saying that respondent no.2 with mala fide intention filed this application against the applicants to create a pressure, because on the basis of report lodged by applicant Surendra Mohan Nayak, Crime No.790/2007 has been registered against Vinod Chaturvedi 3 (respondent no.2 herein) and other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and after investigation, charge sheet no.769/2008 has been filed in the Court. Learned Court of JMFC after receiving report from the concerned police station passed an order dated 10.08.2011 dismissed the application filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The respondent no.2 being aggrieved by that order filed a criminal revision registered as criminal revision no.11/2012.
3. Learned Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 17.01.2012 set aside the order of Court of JMFC dated 10.08.2011 and directed the Station House Officer of Police Station, Kotwali, Katni to register a criminal case against both applicants along with other persons and also directed police station, Katni to investigate into the matter and filed a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court.
4. Learned Court of JMFC in connection with the impugned order of Revisional Court, sent a letter to the Station House Officer along with copy of the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 and in turn police station, Kotwali registered FIR copied whole complaint filed by the respondent no.2 before the Court of JMFC and in compliance of the direction issued by the Revisional Court registered a crime no.124/2012 in police station, Katni against both the applicants and other persons Dr. R.S. Kakodiya, Professor K.K. Verma and Vijay Sharma as their names mentioned in 4 the private complaint for the offence under Sections 166, 177, 182, 203, 211, 220, 384, 388, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 406, 408, 409 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and in pursuant to the direction of the Revisional Court in impugned order submitted a charge sheet against both the applicants as well as other persons whose names are mentioned hereinbefore and this case is pending before the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Katni registered as Sessions Trial No. 61/2014.
5. Both the applicants being aggrieved by the order of Revisional Court dated 17.01.2012 filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the learned Revisional Court committed an error of law and also misused the process of law by directing the police to register the case against both the applicants as well as directing the police to submit the charge sheet after investigation and the police in pursuant to the order of the Revisional Court registered the case against the applicants and also submitted a charge sheet. The applicants prayed for quashing the order of Revisional Court dated 17.01.2012 and also prayed to quash all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submitted that police station, Kotwali, Katni registered a crime no.124/2012 against both the applicants as well as other persons Dr. R.S. Kakodiya, Professor K.K. Verma and Vijay Sharma. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The case is posted for arguments before the charge and both parties submitted the arguments. If the case is not made out 5 against the applicants, the Court will discharge them. The applicants are assailing the order dated 17.01.2012. One of the co-accused Krishna Kumar Verma had already filed a criminal revision being aggrieved by the same order dated 17.01.2012 which is being assailed in the present petitions and that revision has been dismissed by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 793/2013. This Court is not having the jurisdiction to review that order or set aside that order. Hence, prayed to dismiss these present petitions. Counsel for the respondent has submitted a certified copy of order dated 18.03.2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No.793/2013 and prayed to dismiss the petitions.
7. At the outset, the objection raised by the respondent no.2 is to be considered.
8. Perused the order dated 18.03.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 793/2013. One of the co-accused Dr.Krishna Kumar Verma filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a coordinate bench of this Court assailing the order dated 17.01.2012 and the FIR registered as crime no.124/2012 at police station, Kotwali, District Katni. The same order and FIR registered in Crime No.124/2012 is being assailed in the present petitions.
9. Perused the order dated 18.03.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.793/2013. Learned coordinate bench of this Court considered the matter and found that learned Revisional Court had not committed any error or perversity in the order which requires any interference under the inherent powers of this Court enumerated under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. meaning 6 thereby that this Court perused the impugned order, FIR registered as Crime No.124/2012 and after considering the facts, found no error or perversity in the impugned order dated 17.01.2012; whereby learned Revisional Court set aside the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Court of JMFC in unregistered private complaint (Vinod Chaturvedi vs. Surendra Mohan Nayak and others).
10. For the sake of convenience, Section 482 and Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. are being reproduced hereinbelow:-
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 397 Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. (1)The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub- section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
7(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
11. No doubt it has been settled that the inherent powers envisaged under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. having a wider scope than the powers envisaged under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C. Whenever there is any correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or misuse of any proceeding of such inferior Court is informed, the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for the record and examine the record of any proceeding. Meaning thereby that there is an order to which the High Court can examine and if it is found any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order, the High Court can correct the order under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. The order could be challenged before the High Court by any person or High Court can suo motu examine that order. It is not necessary to file a separate petition by a different different person and High Court would examine the order repeatedly and give its finding separately. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the inherent powers can be used by the High Court to give the effect of any order or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Meaning thereby any such type of cases, it is the order that would be examined by the High Court when it is assailed by the aggrieved person or any other person.
12. On the basis of above proposition of law, this Court is of the view that once the impugned order dated 17.01.2012 and FIR registered under Crime No. 124/2012 at police station, 8 Kotwali, Katni had already been assailed before the High Court by one of the co-accused Dr. Krishna Kumar Verma S/o Roshan Lal Verma and the High Court had already examined and considered that order and not found any perversity or incorrectness or any error which requires any interference at the stage under the inherent powers of the High Court enumerated under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. then this Court has no jurisdiction to again reassess or re-examine the same order in these petitions filed by the applicants who are arrayed as co-accused along with Dr. Krishna Kumar Verma who is applicant in M.Cr.C. No.793/2013. The Court is not having any power to review the order dated 18.03.2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 793/2013 by a coordinate bench of this Court passed against the same impugned order dated 17.01.2012 which is being assailed in these petitions.
13. Consequently, both aforesaid petitions are not maintainable, in respect of the order dated 18.03.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.793/2013 by a coordinate bench of this Court which pertains to the same impugned order dated 17.01.2012 and also FIR registered as Crime No.124/2012 at police station, Kotwali, Katni. Consequently, both petitions are dismissed on the aforesaid ground.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Digitally signed by BIJU b Date: 2019.09.19 11:13:16 +05'30' Judge 9 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.12211/2015 Surendra Mohan Nayak
-V/s-
State of Madhya Pradesh and another Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2236/2016 Dinesh Kumar Acharya
-V/s-
State of Madhya Pradesh and another ORDER Post for : /09/2019 (Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge