Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Premsingh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                          1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      MCRC No.43458/2021
            Prem Singh Rawat & Anr. vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated : 14/02/2022

      Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Counsel for the applicants.

      Shri R.K. Awasthi, Counsel for the respondent/State.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.526/2021 registered at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 323, 452, 294, 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

During course of arguments, it was specifically pointed out to the counsel for the applicants that he has not impleaded the complainant as a respondent and since he is seeking quashment of FIR, therefore, the complainant is a necessary party, however, the counsel for the applicants maintained that the complainant is not a necessary party.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and another reported in AIR 1985 SC 1285 and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2019) 8 SCC 27 has held that whenever any closure report is filed, then the complainant is required to be heard.

In the present case, the applicants are seeking quashment of FIR, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.43458/2021 Prem Singh Rawat & Anr. vs. State of M.P. the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari (supra), it is clear that the complainant is required to be heard.

Since the applicants were given an opportunity to implead the complainant and he has refused to do so by submitting that he is not a necessary party, therefore, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the application only on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.02.15 17:51:56 +05'30'