Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2019
1
M.Cr.C.No.49094/2018 Shyam Singh Ors. Vs. State of M.P.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri S.K. Awasthi, J
M.Cr.C. No. 49094/2018
Shyam Singh & Ors.
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Aayush Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 03 /01/2019) The applicants have challeged the order dated 06/02/2018, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur, District-Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 84/2018, whereby the charge for offence under Sections 457, 323/34 and 354(D) of the IPC has been framed against the applicant No.1-Shyam Singh and charge for offence under Sections 457 and 323/34 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant No.2-Lal Singh.
2. The facts lying in the narrow compass are that on 30/12/2017, one Gopal Singh has lodged the report at Police Station-Jharda, District-Ujjain against the applicants alleging that on 25/12/2017 at around 10:15 p.m., he was watching a film on his mobile phone while his sister-in-law-Lal Kunwar Bai was sleeping in an adjacent house with her kids. At that time complainant and his sister-in-law saw that applicant No.1-Shyam Singh came and locked the door of the house, (where Lad Kunwar Bai was sleeping) from the outside and walked away. After watching this Lad Kunwar Bai and her kids came to the complainants house. At around 1:40 a.m., applicant No.2-Lal 2 M.Cr.C.No.49094/2018 Shyam Singh Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Singh entered into the house situated at back side, after breaking the door open. The moment caused making of sounds to which complainant reacted and he stood outside waiting for applicant No.2- Lal Singh to get out. Thereafter, when Lal Singh got out of the house, Gopal Singh beated him with stick, then he fled away by scuffling. It is also alleged that 8-10 days ago, applicant No.1- Shyam Singh used to follow the Lad Kunwar Bai, when she used to go for farming, after which the complainant had a talk with Shyam Singh, to which Shyam Singh, assured that he would not do such an act again. Even after that applicant No.1-Shyam singh put a lock in the house of Lad Kunwar Bai and applicant No.2 broke the door and got inside. On the basis of that report, Police registered a case at Crime No. 284/2017 for the commission of offence under Section 457, 323 and 354(D)/34 of the IPC against the applicants. After completion of the investigation, charge before the trial Court.
3. The trial Court has framed the charge against applicant No.1-Shyam Singh for the offence under Sections 457, 323/34 and 354(D) of the IPC and Section 457 and 323/34 of the IPC against applicant No.2-Lal Singh. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicants have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no allegation in the FIR as well as in the statement of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., that the applicant No.1 Shyam Singh tress passed the house of Lad Kunwar Bai and ever had any sort of altercation with the complainant or someone else, therefore, 3 M.Cr.C.No.49094/2018 Shyam Singh Ors. Vs. State of M.P. there is no material available on record to framed the charge for offence under Section 457 of the IPC against the applicant No.1- Shyam Singh. It is also submitted that the trial Court has grossly erred in framing the charge for offence under Section 354(D) of the IPC against the applicant No.1-Shyam Singh because the contents of stalking was back dated and did not form the same cause of action that was the root cause of lodging the FIR. Similarly, there is no allegation against the applicants that they have assaulted or caused any injury to the complainant or someone else, therefore, the trial Court has also committed grave error in framing the charge for offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC against the applicants. Therefore, he prays that the order of framing of charge for offence under Sections 457, 323/34 and 354(D) of the IPC against the applicant No.1 and charge for offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC against applicant No.2- Lal Singh be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and submitted that looking to the material available on record, the trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the applicants.
6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents available on record.
7. From the perusal of the FIR and the statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it appears that there is the allegation against applicant No.1-Shyam Singh that 8-10 days prior to lodging the FIR, Lad Kunwar Bai infromed her husband Bharat Singh and brother-in-law-Gopal Singh that applicant No.1-Shyam 4 M.Cr.C.No.49094/2018 Shyam Singh Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Singh used to follow her, when she used to go for farming, after which the complainant had a talk with Shyam Singh, to which Shyam Singh, assured that he would not do such an act in future. Although, this incident happens 8-10 days prior to 25/12/2017, however, this act of the applicant No.1 was reported to the police, by present FIR therefore, the trial Court has rightly framed the charge for offence under Section 354(D) of the IPC against applicant No.1-Shyam Singh. So far as the offence 457 of the IPC is concerned, there is no allegation against applicant No.1-Shyam Singh that he entered into the house of complainant, therefore, the trial Court has committed error in framing the charge for offence under Section 457 of the IPC against him. As per the contents of the FIR, the allegation against applicant No.1-Shyam Singh is that on 25/12/2017 at about 10:15 p.m., he locked the door of the house of Lad Kunwar Bai from outside and walked away, which shows that the applicant No.1-Shyam Singh wrongfully confined the Lad Kunwar Bai with intend to do anything illegal, therefore, this act of the applicant No.1 comes within the purview of Section 347 of the IPC but no charge has been framed by the trial Court for the aforesaid offence against the applicant No.1.
8. The allegation against the applicant No.2-Lal Singh is that he entered into the house of complainant after breaking the door open, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charge for offence under Section 457 of the IPC against applicant No.2-Lal Singh. However, there is no allegation against the applicant No.2 that after entering into the house of complainant-Gopal Singh, he assaulted him or caused any injury to him or someone else, at that time the presence of applicant 5 M.Cr.C.No.49094/2018 Shyam Singh Ors. Vs. State of M.P. No.1 Shyam Singh was also not mentioned in the FIR and in the statements of complainant and other prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, there is no ingredients are available to constitute an offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC against the applicants.
9. Keeping in this view of the matter, present petition is partly allowed and the charges framed against the applicant No.1- Shyam Singh for the offence under Sections 457 and 323/34 of the IPC and charge for offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC against applicant No.2-Lal Singh are hereby quashed. However, the trial Court is expected to alter the charge framed against applicant No.1-Shyam Singh according to the discussion made herein above.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt Santosh Kumar Tiwari 2019.01.03 16:08:36 +05'30'