Diman Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3736 MP

                          1
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        MCRC.No.32074/2021
     (Diman Singh & Others Vs. The State of M.P. & Another)

Gwalior, Dated : 30.07.2021

      Shri D.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri Ajay Raghuvanshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

      Heard the learned counsel for the parties through Video

Conferencing.

      The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is being filed

challenging the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Pichhore, District Shivpuri wherein on the basis

of private complaint filed by the respondent no.2 the cognizance is

taken by the concerning Court against the petitioners with respect to

the offences committed under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and

Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is alleged that the petitioners have not been named in the

F.I.R.. though other incrementing material is available on record

against the present petitioners. The only allegation against the husband

was made in the F.I.R. In none of the statements recorded by the

prosecution, there were allegations against the present petitioners.

From the perusal of the entire charge sheet, the police has not found

any material against the present petitioners in the entire investigation,

therefore, has preferred to file closer report against the present

petitioners. It is argued that the Court has already gone through the

entire charge sheet and thereafter, has chosen not to take cognizance

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.32074/2021 (Diman Singh & Others Vs. The State of M.P. & Another)

against the present petitioners. Thereafter, on the basis of the private

complaint filed by the complainant, the cognizance is taken by the

learned trial Court. It is submitted that it is a settled provision of law

that the cognizance is only be taken once by the learned trial court.

Once the trial Court has chosen not to take cognizance against the

other family members then no case has arisen to the trial Court to take

cognizance on the private complaint filed by the complainant. He has

further drawn attention of this Court to the statements which are being

recorded of the family members which are filed from page 17 onwards

alongwith his compilation. He has relied upon the judgment passed by

the Supreme Court in the case of Balveer Singh and Another Vs.

State of Rajasthan and Another, 2016 (6) SCC 680 in which the

similar aspect was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. In such circumstances, the order impugned is unsustainable and

deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the

arguments and has submitted that initially the police authorities have

investigated the matter and have filed the closer report against the

other family members and only charge sheet was filed against the

husband. But in the statements recorded of the other family members

including the complainant, they have categorically stated regarding

commission of the offences by the other family members also. It is

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.32074/2021 (Diman Singh & Others Vs. The State of M.P. & Another)

argued that the private complaint was filed by the complainant against

the action of the police authorities is not registering the case against

the family members and on the basis of the material available on record

, the learned trial court has found that looking to the statements and the

material available on record, prima facie the case is made out against

the other family members also, therefore, the cognizance is taken into

the matter. There is no bar for the trial Court to take cognizance on the

private complaint which has been filed subsequently after filing of

closer report by the police authorities. The complainant is having every

right to file a private complaint or could have initiated the proceedings

under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. during investigation but the fact

remains that when the police authorities have tried to submit the closer

report against the other co-accused persons and when no action was

taken against the other family members, she was compelled to prefer a

private complaint. He has further drawn attention of this Court to

several statements which have been recorded wherein they have

categorically stated against the present petitioners regarding

commission of the offences. In such circumstances, no illegality has

been committed by the learned trial Court in taking cognizance in the

matter. He has prayed for dismissal of petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of the record, it is seen that initially F.I.R. was

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.32074/2021 (Diman Singh & Others Vs. The State of M.P. & Another)

made against the husband but subsequently the statements which have

been recorded, the names of the other co-accused persons have already

been taken pointing out the fact that harassment and demand of dowry

was made by them. The police authorities have completed the

investigation and have not found any incrementing material against the

petitioners and have submitted the closer report against them. Being

aggrieved by the same, a private complaint was filed by the

complainant before the learned trial Court and the trial Court, after

examining the entire matter, has arrived at a conclusion that the

sufficient material is available on record to take cognizance against the

present petitioners. It is a settled proposition of law that if the

complainant is not satisfied with the manner of investigation carried

out by the police authorities, she is having every right to move the

learned trial Court by way of filing an application under Section 156

(3) of Cr.P.C. if the investigation is pending and under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C. by filing a private complaint. In the present case, she has

exercised the aforesaid rights and the trial Court has rightly found

incrementing material against the present petitioners. It is also settled

position that the trial Court is only required to see that prima facie

some incrementing material is available on record and he has to record

a satisfaction while taking cognizance in the matter. The trial Court has

categorically recorded that certain material is available against the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.32074/2021 (Diman Singh & Others Vs. The State of M.P. & Another)

present petitioners regarding the offences committed against the

complainant. In such circumstances, no illegality is committed by the

trial Court in taking cognizance against the present petitioners. In such

circumstances, no case for interference in the order impugned is made

out.

Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is hereby rejected.

E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioners and it is made

clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for

practical purposes in respect of this order.

                                                     (Vishal Mishra)
AK/-                                                     Judge
       ANAND KUMAR
       2021.07.31
       17:57:15 +05'30'