Pappan @ Yusuf Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8406 MP

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.52364/2021 Pappan alias Yusuf Khan v. State of M.P and Anr.

Gwalior, Dated:07.12.2021

Smt. Shabnam Bano Ali, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri R.K. Awasthy, Counsel for the State.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed

against the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by 17 th Additional Sessions

Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 112/2020 thereby affirming

the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal

Case No. 4430/2020 by which the charges under Sections 352, 324

and 504-A of IPC have been framed.

According to prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report

that the applicant had thrown hot meat on the face of the victim, as a

result, she is having a burning sensation in her eyes. By referring to

the MLC report of the injured Muskan, it is submitted by the

Counsel for the applicant that in the MLC report, it is mentioned that

the history of the case is throwing hot curry in the eyes and there was

a complaint of burning in both eyes. It is submitted that this MLC

report is contrary to the FIR because in the FIR, it was not mentioned

that hot curry was thrown, but it was mentioned that hot meat was

thrown. It is further submitted that although the MLC of the Victim

Muskan was done on 17.09.2018, but the victim was treated by

Gajraraja Medical College on 20.09.2018, therefore, it is clear that no

treatment was provided to the victim during these two days which

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.52364/2021 Pappan alias Yusuf Khan v. State of M.P and Anr.

clearly indicates that the victim has not suffered any injury. It is

further submitted that as per the FIR, the complaint was lodged by

Najma Begum, whereas in the charges, it has been mentioned that the

complaint was lodged by Jaswant Singh. It is further submitted that

there is an old enmity between the parties and the present applicant

has been falsely implicated.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

Counsel for the State. It is submitted that roving enquiry and

meticulous appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of

framing of charges.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The applicant is correct in making a submission that as per the

FIR, the complaint was lodged by Najma Begum, whereas in the

charges, the name of the complainant has been mentioned as Jaswant

Singh. However, it is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the applicant

that no application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. has been moved

before the trial Court for alteration or correction of charges.

Furthermore, it is not the case of the applicant that because of wrong

mentioning of name of complainant in the charges, the applicant will

suffer any serious prejudice.

Be that whatever it may be.

If the applicant is of the view that there is some mistake in the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.52364/2021 Pappan alias Yusuf Khan v. State of M.P and Anr.

charge which has been framed by the trial Court, then he can always

file an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C for alteration or

correction of the charges.

So far as the submission that the applicant has been falsely

implicated on account of old enmity is concerned, except oral

statement, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the

same. Furthermore, this Court at the stage of framing of charge

cannot look into the defence of the accused and in the light of the

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State Of

Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 the

accused is not entitled to raise any defence and the charges are to be

framed strictly on the basis of material relied upon by the

prosecution.

So far as the allegation of throwing hot meat on the face of

victim Muskan is concerned, the FIR cannot be discarded merely on

the ground that in the MLC report, the history has been mentioned as

throwing hot curry in her eyes. The burning sensation in both the

eyes of the victim was found.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake by framing

charges under Sections 352, 324 and 504-A of IPC. The application

fails and is hereby dismissed.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.52364/2021 Pappan alias Yusuf Khan v. State of M.P and Anr.

However, by way of abundant of caution, it is observed that

this Court has considered the allegation in the light of the limited

scope of interference at the stage of framing charges.

Any observations made in this order shall not prejudice the

trial Court and the trial Court shall decide the trial strictly, in

accordance with the evidence, which would come on record.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge ar

ABDUR RAHMAN 2021.12.07 17:13:42 +05'30'