Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deva Alias Rahul Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
1 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23156 of 2023
DEVA ALIAS RAHUL GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajmani Bansal - Advocate for applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Kumar Jha- Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 530 of 2019 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior for offences under Section 366 of IPC, Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Sections 365, 364, 302, 201, and 376 of the IPC, which were added at a later stage.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 2 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
2. In this application, it has not been disclosed by the applicant that earlier he had filed two applications under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings and both the cases were withdrawn. M.Cr.C. No.34672/2020 was filed on 14/09/2020 under section 482 of Cr.P.C. which was withdrawn on 25/1/2022. Thereafter, another application (M.Cr.C. No. 39372/2021) was also filed on 4/8/2021 which was also withdrawn on 25/1/2022. Thus, it is clear that earlier also during pendency of first application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicant had filed another application and both the applications were withdrawn. In the present application, it has not been disclosed as to whether this is first application or repeat application. The factum of rejection of M.Cr.C. Nos.34672/2020 and 39372/2021 has not been disclosed. Since this Court was transferred to Principal Seat at Jabalpur, therefore, this application was listed before co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C was filed on 29.05.2023, and after 2 days of filing of the application i.e. on 1.06.2023, a coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings even without issuing notice to the complainant and without awaiting response from the State. Accordingly, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 2025, which has been allowed by the Supreme Court by order dated 21st January 2025, and the matter has been remanded back with a direction to the High Court to hear all the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order. It has also been directed that the High Court shall also keep in mind that on earlier occasion, an application for quashment of FIR and consequential criminal proceedings was withdrawn, and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 3 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 it has also been directed by the Supreme Court that the effect of withdrawal or dismissal of the earlier application, shall also be taken into consideration.
4. Shri Rajmani Bansal, Advocate, who had appeared on 1.06.2023 before the coordinate Bench of this Court and argued the matter, submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw MCRC No. 23156 of 2023. In view of the fact that coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed and quashed the proceedings within two days and that too without issuing any notice to the complainant, as well as in the light of directions given by the Supreme Court, this Court refused to allow the applicant to withdraw this application.
5. Faced with such a situation, Shri Bansal submitted that he has no instructions in the matter.
6. Considered the submissions made by Shri Rajmani Bansal with regard to no instructions.
7. If Shri Rajmani Bansal had no instructions, then he should not have prayed for withdrawal of the application. But the moment the case was called up and he stood up and prayed for withdrawal, that means he had full instructions but now he does not wish to face the adverse situation which was created by himself by obtaining an order of quashment as well as by suppressing the material fact of withdrawal of a similar application on earlier occasion.
8. Be that whatever it may be.
9. If counsel for applicant is not interested in arguing the matter, then this Court would like to decide this application on its own merits by rejecting the prayer to withdraw this application.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 4 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
10. According to prosecution case, one Gum Insan report was lodged by complainant "A" on 26/5/2019 alleging that her sister "B" was living with the applicant for the last 4 years. "B" has left her room and her whereabouts are not known. The mobile number of "B" was mentioned in the Gum Insan report. It was also mentioned that she has enquired from the husband of "B" i.e. Applicant who has expressed ignorance about whereabouts of "B".
11. On 09.05.2019, an FIR was lodged by complainant Jaswant Yadav at Police Station Kotwali, Datia, stating that he is a resident of Housing Board Colony. In the morning, he found that the dead body of one lady is lying behind the colony in a burnt condition. The face of the dead body was also burnt, and it was stated that some unknown person had killed the lady by causing injuries on her head. In order to hide her identity, her face had been burnt. Accordingly, on the report lodged by Jaswant, Police Station Kotwali, District Datia, registered FIR in Crime No. 246 of 2019. Later, on 6/10/2019, complainant, her mother, sister and brother were called in Police Station Bahodapur and they were shown the photograph of dead body of an unknown lady which was found in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, Datia. From the photograph, clothes and slippers etc., dead body was identified to be that of "B".The FIR registered at P.S.Kotwali, Datia was transferred to P.S.Bahodapur, District Gwalior.
12. The postmortem of the dead body was got done. In the postmortem report, head injury was found, and in the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury. The injury was caused by hard and blunt object and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injury was antemortem and the burns were postmortem in nature.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 5 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
13. The incriminating body parts of deceased were preserved. Blood sample of the applicant was collected while he was lodged in jail. The DNA profile of the stains found on the clothes of the deceased was found to be of applicant. The stroll which was seized from the spot was found to contain the DNA profile of applicant. However, the vaginal smear was found to be containing very low, uninterpretable male Y-STR DNA profile. It was also found that the deceased and complainant are biological relatives, whereas deceased was the biological mother of the foetus, and the applicant was not the biological father of the foetus. The CDR of mobile numbers and tower locations were also collected. The police, after completing investigation, filed the charge sheet.
14. On 18.08.2019, the statement of applicant was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He informed that "B" was living with him in the capacity of his wife in a house situated in Bhuteshwar Colony, Gwalior, and now he has kept her in the house of one S.K. Singh (Christain), resident of Jhansi, who is residing near Water Head Tank, Khati Baba, Isai Tola, in the house of Samsun Isai.
15. Smt. Anita Yagnik, who is the landlord of the house in which "B" was residing, has also stated that on 08.05.2019, "B" had gone along with the applicant and thereafter she did not return. On 15.05.2019, applicant came back, and while he was opening the lock of the door, she enquired as to why "B" has not come. Then it was replied by the applicant that "B" has gone to the house of her Bua, and thereafter he left.
16. The statement of Suraj Singh was also recorded, who has stated that he is running a clinic in the name of Padma Clinic situated in Rampuri Mohalla, Shabd Pratap Ashram, Gwalior. He stated that on the recommendation of "A,"
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 6 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 he had kept "B" in his clinic on a monthly salary of Rupees 1,000 for mopping and dusting purposes. It is stated that "B" worked for about one year in the clinic, and thereafter she left the job in the month of January 2019 on the ground that she had conceived. In the month of April 2019, "B" had come along with "A" to his clinic to show the report of ultrasound. After looking at the ultrasound report as well as medical prescriptions written by Dr. Beena Bansal, he informed that "B" is carrying a pregnancy of 3 months. Later on, "A"
informed him that her sister "B" is missing since 08.05.2019.
17. Charges were also framed by trial Court by order dated 6/12/2019.
18. From the evidence which has been collected by the police, it is clear that the coordinate Bench of this Court had wrongly held that the case is based on confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In fact, the case is based on circumstantial evidence of: (i) last seen together; (ii) that applicant was residing with deceased as husband and wife in a rented house, whereas applicant was already married and was having children;
(iii) On the fateful day, both of them left their rented house, and thereafter the deceased "B" was not seen alive; (iv) The stains found on the clothes of the deceased were found to be containing DNA profile of applicant and (v) DNA profile on the stroll recovered from the spot where the dead body of deceased was found to be containing DNA profile of applicant.
19. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that there is prima facie material warranting prosecution of the applicant. Even otherwise, it is a well-established principle of law that if an application is filed for quashment of proceedings, then complainant has to be heard.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 7 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
20. In the present case, although the complainant was arrayed as respondent No.2, but no notice was issued to her. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537 has held as under:-
4. Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in-charge of a police station to the Magistrate under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 comes up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case, the Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate again has an option to adopt one of three courses: (1) he may accept the report and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156. Where, in either of these two situations, the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence and to issue process, the informant is not prejudicially affected nor is the injured or in case of death, any relative of the deceased aggrieved, because cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate and it is decided by the Magistrate that the case shall proceed. But if the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that though there is sufficient ground for proceeding against some, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against others mentioned in the first information report, the informant would certainly be prejudiced because the first information report lodged by him would have failed of its purpose, wholly or in part. Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and effective action being taken on the first information report lodged by him is clearly recognised by the provisions contained in sub-section (2) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 8 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 of Section 154, sub-section (2) of Section 157 and sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 173, it must be presumed that the informant would equally be interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process, because that would be culmination of the first information report lodged by him. There can. therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-
charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. It was urged before us on behalf of the respondents that if in such a case notice is required to be given to the informant, it might result in unnecessary delay on account of the difficulty of effecting service of the notice on the informant. But we do not think this can be regarded as a valid objection against the view we are taking, because in any case the action taken by the police on the first information report has to be communicated to the informant and a copy of the report has to be supplied to him under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 and if that be so, we do not see any reason why it should be difficult to serve notice of the consideration of the report on the informant. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate.
5. The position may however, be a little different when we consider the question whether the injured person or a relative of the deceased, who is not the informant, is entitled to notice when the report comes up for consideration by the Magistrate. We cannot spell out either from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or from the principles of natural justice, any obligation on the Magistrate to issue notice to the injured person or to a relative of the deceased for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 9 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 providing such person an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report, unless such person is the informant who has lodged the first information report. But even if such person is not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, he can appear before the Magistrate and make his submissions when the report is considered by the Magistrate for the purpose of deciding what action he should take on the report. The injured person or any relative of the deceased, though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be considered by the Magistrate and if he wants to make his submissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound to hear him. We may also observe that even though the Magistrate is not bound to give notice of the hearing fixed for consideration of the report to the injured person or to any relative of the deceased, he may, in the exercise of his discretion, if he so thinks fit, give such notice to the injured person or to any particular relative or relatives of the deceased, but not giving of such notice will not have any invalidating effect on the order which may be made by the Magistrate on a consideration of the report.
21. The Supreme Court in the case of J.K. International v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2001) 3 SCC 462 has held as under:-
13. We may now proceed to point out the usefulness of the observations made by the three-Judge Bench in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267] .
Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) who spoke for the Bench pointed out that the informant having taken the initiative in lodging the first information report, with a view to initiate investigation by the police, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence has been committed (if so by whom) is vitally interested in the result of the investigation and hence the law requires that the action taken by the officer in charge of the police station on such FIR should be communicated to him. The Bench said this with reference to Section 173(2)(i) of the Code.
14. This Court further said in the decision that if the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further the informant would certainly be prejudiced because the FIR was lodged by him.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 10 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 After adverting to different clauses of Section 173 of the Code learned Judges laid down the legal proposition in para 5 of the said judgment. The law so laid down is that though there is no obligation on the Magistrate to issue notice to the injured person or to a relative of the deceased in order to provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the final report of the police (except when the final report is to the effect that no offence had been made out in the case), the informant who lodged the FIR is entitled to a notice from the Magistrate. In other instances, the injured or any relative of the accused can appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the police report if such person otherwise comes to know that the Magistrate is going to consider the report. If such person appears before the Magistrate it is the duty of the Magistrate to hear him. It is profitable to extract the relevant portion of that ratio: (SCC p. 543, para 5) "The injured person or any relative of the deceased, though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be considered by the Magistrate and if he wants to make his submissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound to hear him. We may also observe that even though the Magistrate is not bound to give notice of the hearing fixed for consideration of the report to the injured person or to any relative of the deceased, he may, in the exercise of his discretion, if he so thinks fit, give such notice to the injured person or to any particular relative or relatives of the deceased, but not giving of such notice will not have any invalidating effect on the order which may be made by the Magistrate on a consideration of the report."
15. In the above view of the matter learned Single Judge has done wrong to the appellant when he closed the door of the High Court before him by saying that the High Court is going to consider whether the criminal proceedings initiated at his behest should be quashed completely and that the complainant would not be heard at all even if he wants to be heard.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 11 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
22. The Supreme Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 has held as under:-
A. Victim's right to be heard
15. Until recently, criminal law had been viewed on a dimensional plane wherein the courts were required to adjudicate between the accused and the State. The "victim"--the de facto sufferer of a crime had no participation in the adjudicatory process and was made to sit outside the Court as a mute spectator. However, with the recognition that the ethos of criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish "crime" had surreptitiously turned its back on the "victim", the jurisprudence with respect to the rights of victims to be heard and to participate in criminal proceedings began to positively evolve.
16. Internationally, the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for the Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, which was adopted vide the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 40/34, was a landmark in boosting the pro-victim movement. The Declaration defined a "victim" as someone who has suffered harm, physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss, impairment of fundamental rights through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within a State, regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted, and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the "victim". Other international bodies, such as the European Union, also took great strides in granting and protecting the rights of "victims"
through various covenants [ The position of a victim in the framework of Criminal Law and Procedure, Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to Member States, 1985; Strengthening victim's right in the EU communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Reasons, European Union, 2011; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing "Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime, European Union, 2011.] .
17. Amongst other nations, the United States of America had also made two enactments on the subject i.e. (i) The Victims of Crime Act, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 12 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 1984 under which legal assistance is granted to the crime-victims; and
(ii) The "victims" Rights and Restitution Act of 1990. This was followed by meaningful amendments, repeal and insertion of new provisions in both the statutes through an Act passed by the House of Representatives as well as the Senate. In Australia, the legislature has enacted South Australia Victims of Crime Act, 2001. While in Canada there is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Most of these legislations have defined the "victim" of a crime liberally and have conferred varied rights on such victims.
18. On the domestic front, recent amendments to the CrPC have recognised a victim's rights in the Indian criminal justice system. The genesis of such rights lies in the 154th Report of the Law Commission of India, wherein, radical recommendations on the aspect of compensatory justice to a victim under a compensation scheme were made. Thereafter, a Committee on the Reforms of Criminal Justice System in its Report in 2003, suggested ways and means to develop a cohesive system in which all parts are to work in coordination to achieve the common goal of restoring the lost confidence of the people in the criminal justice system. The Committee recommended the rights of the victim or his/her legal representative "to be impleaded as a party in every criminal proceeding where the charges are punishable with seven years' imprisonment or more".
19. It was further recommended that the victim be armed with a right to be represented by an advocate of his/her choice, and if he/she is not in a position to afford the same, to provide an advocate at the State's expense. The victim's right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee. Repeated judicial intervention, coupled with the recommendations made from time to time as briefly noticed above, prompted Parliament to bring into force the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which not only inserted the definition of a "victim" under Section 2(wa) but also statutorily recognised various rights of such victims at different stages of trial.
20. It is pertinent to mention that the legislature has thoughtfully given a wide and expansive meaning to the expression "victim" which Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 13 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 "means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir".
21. This Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka [Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, paras 3 and 8 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 801] , while dealing with questions regarding a victim's right to file an appeal under Section 372CrPC, observed that there was need to give adequate representation to victims in criminal proceedings. The Court therein affirmed the victim's right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. In Mallikarjun Kodagali [Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, paras 3 and 8 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 801] , though the Court was primarily concerned with a different legal issue, it will be fruitful in the present context to take note of some of the observations made therein : (SCC pp. 760-61, paras 3 and 8) "3. What follows in a trial is often secondary victimisation through repeated appearances in court in a hostile or a semi- hostile environment in the courtroom. Till sometime back, secondary victimisation was in the form of aggressive and intimidating cross-examination, but a more humane interpretation of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 has made the trial a little less uncomfortable for the victim of an offence, particularly the victim of a sexual crime. In this regard, the judiciary has been proactive in ensuring that the rights of victims are addressed, but a lot more needs to be done. Today, the rights of an accused far outweigh the rights of the victim of an offence in many respects. There needs to be some balancing of the concerns and equalising their rights so that the criminal proceedings are fair to both. [Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 202] ...
***
8. The rights of victims, and indeed victimology, is an evolving jurisprudence and it is more than appropriate to move forward in a positive direction, rather than stand still or worse, take a step backward. A voice has been given to victims of crime by Parliament and the judiciary and that voice needs to be heard, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 14 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 and if not already heard, it needs to be raised to a higher decibel so that it is clearly heard."
(emphasis supplied)
22. It cannot be gainsaid that the rights of a victim under the amended CrPC are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen [Ed. : The literal translation from the Latin approximates to "meaningless thunderbolt or lightning", and is used to convey the idea of an "empty threat" or something which is ineffective.] . We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the CrPC. The presence of "State" in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a "victim" of the crime.
23. A "victim" within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a "victim" has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that "victim" and "complainant/informant" are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a "victim", for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an "informant", and similarly, a "victim" need not be the complainant or informant of a felony.
24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in the Special Acts like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that:
24.1.First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2.Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 15 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.
25. Adverting to the case at hand, we are constrained to express our disappointment with the manner in which the High Court has failed to acknowledge the right of the victims. It is worth mentioning that, the complainant in FIR No. 219 of 2021, as well as the present appellants, are close relatives of the farmers who have lost their lives in the incident dated 3-10-2021. The specific stance taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the counsel for the "victim" had got disconnected from the online proceedings and could not make effective submissions before the High Court has not been controverted by the respondents. Thereafter, an application seeking a rehearing on the ground that the "victim" could not participate in the proceedings was also moved but it appears that the same was not considered by the High Court while granting bail to the respondent-accused.
23. However, in the present case, proceedings were quashed just after two days of filing of the application under Section 482 of CrPC. The application under Section 482 of CrPC was filed on 29.05.2023, and the proceedings were quashed on 1.06.2023, and that too without issuing any notice to the complainant or the State. From the order dated 1.06.2023, it is clear that even Shri Pramod Pachouri, State counsel had conceded to the incorrect statement made by counsel for applicant that the case is based on the solitary ground of confessional statement made by applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
What was the reason for the State counsel to make a concessional statement is best known to the State counsel only. It is not out of place to mention here that copy of chargesheet was filed along with application under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
24. Be that whatever it may be.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 16 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
25. The only thing which can be said is that the manner in which the case was argued and the manner in which the case has been decided speaks in volumes. Be that whatever it may be. Once this Court has come to the conclusion that there is material evidence against applicant of staying together as husband and wife, last seen together, and thereafter the deceased was never seen alive, close proximity of time i.e. 8/5/09 when "B" went missing and dead body was recovered on 9/5/09, the presence of DNA profile in the stains found on the clothes of deceased, presence of DNA profile on the stroll recovered from the spot, it is clear that there is sufficient material to prosecute the applicant.
26. As already pointed out, applicant has not disclosed that this is repeat application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. First two applications, which were filed by applicant on 14/09/2020 and 4/8/2021 for quashment of proceedings were registered as M.Cr.C. No.34672/2020 and M.Cr.C. No.39372/2021 respectively and were withdrawn on 25/1/2022. However, without any change in circumstances, this application has been filed and that too without disclosing the factum of withdrawal of first two applications. Therefore, this repeat application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. without any change in circumstanes, is also not otherwise maintainable.
27. Immediately after the prosecution was quashed, applicant was discharged from all the charges. Accordingly, applicant is directed to immediately surrender before the trial court latest by 30.04.2025, failing which the trial Court shall issue warrant of arrest against the applicant for ensuring his presence.
28. With aforesaid observations, the application fails and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lac to be deposited by applicant in the Registry of this Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936 17 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023 within a period of one month, failing which the Prinicpal Registrar shall not only initiate proceedings for recovery of cost but shall also register a case for contempt of Court. The cost has been imposed for suppression of material fact of dismissal of earlier two petitions for similar relief.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-04-2025 07:52:10 PM