Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Richa Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 26th OF APRIL, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16515 of 2022
Between:-
SMT. RICHA SINGH W/O SHRI RISHI KUMAR
SINGH , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O 4/1 MANIT COLLEGE CAMPUS,
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PANKAJ DUBEY, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION RATIBARD BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANSHUMAN TIWARI S/O SHRI AWADESH
NARAYAN TIWARI R/O A-2 LAKE PALACE
CHUNABHATTI BHOPAL M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AAMIT GHAMANAGANVAKAR S/O SHRI JAYANT
GHAM ANAGANVAKAR R/O HOUSE NO. 13/5
ANJALI COMPLEX TULSI NAGAR SECOND BUS
STOP BHOPAL M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ASHISH RAI S/O SHRI RAMESH RAI R/O M102
KAMLA NAGAR KOTARA SULTANABAD UP
(UTTAR PRADESH)
5. PUSHPMITRA MISHRA S/O SHRI S.N MISHRA R/O
HOUSE NO. 6/43 MANIT COLLEGE CAMPUS
BHOPAL M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PIYUSH BHATNAGAR, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein, who is the
complainant in ST No.400867/2013. The brief facts laying down the genesis of the
case are as follows :
The petitioner is the President of the Chanakya Kautilya Shikshan Sansthan.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
It is a registered society which is operating a college under the name and style of
Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH
SOLANKI
Date: 2022.04.29 16:38:59 IST Acropolis College. On 12.11.2012, the respondent no.2 Anshuman Tiwari, an
erstwhile member of the society and his associates are alleged to have fraudulently
opened a bank account in the name of Chanakya Kautilya Shikshan Sansthan and
got the scholarships due to 204 students deposited in to the fabricated account.
The amount came to Rs.57,27,180/-. This was a scholarships from the State to be
doled out to the students belonging to a special category. However, it is further
alleged that the respondent nos. 2 to 5 conspired and got entire amount of
Rs.57,27,180/- transferred into the account of the respondent no.2, which operates
the account of Clean Tek Paradise Private Limited. The petitioner first tried to
register an FIR, which was not registered initially, so she approached the Court of
the Magistrate in a petition under section 200 Cr.P.C. supported by an application
under section 156 (3), which was allowed. Thereafter the police registered the
FIR,which is Crime No.98/2014 on 3.3.2014. In the Course of the trial, the
petitioner moved an application to assist the prosecution, which was allowed.
Subsequently, the petitioner came into possession of the testimonies made
by the respondent no.2 Anshuman Tiwari, in two other cases where he is the
complainant. Those cases are RT No.9161/2014 and RT No.1028/2014, in which,
the respondent no.2 is alleged to have admitted that he was a CEO of the
Chanakya Kautilya Shikshan Sansthan for a period of time. Thereafter, in order to
place the said documents on record before the Trial court, the petitioner moved an
application under section 91 Cr.P.C. stating before the Court that after the case
commenced, the petitioner who is the complainant came into possession of the
testimonies of the respondent no.2 and that she wants to place the same on record
and so moved an application under section 91 Cr.P.C. through the public
prosecutor.
The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application with a brief but a
reasoned order by holding that the provision under section 91 Cr.P.C. is for
securing documents by the Police or the Court from such persons who may be in
possession thereof. It is not a provision to enable someone who is already in
possession of a particular document to place them on record and, therefore, it
Signature Not Verified
dismissed the application under section 91. The Trial Court, however, thereafter
SAN
Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH
recorded in its order " vfHk;kstu ;fn mfpr le>rk gS rks og mfpr izde ij mfpr izko/kku ds
SOLANKI
Date: 2022.04.29 16:38:59 IST
varxZr nLrkost izLrqr djus dh dk;Zokgh laikfnr dj ldrk gSA"
In other words the learned Trial Court gave the liberty to the prosecution
that if it so deems fit an proper at an appropriate stage it may place these
documents through the appropriate procedure.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court some
judgments where according to him similar situation has been dealt. The first
precedent is reported in I.L.R.2019 M.P. 2395 (Anchal Tiwari Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others). In that case, the Court was examining the extent of
involvement that a complainant had in a criminal case. In paragraph 11, the
petitioner in his application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that the
relevant documents which were mentioned by the petitioner were in the custody of
the SHO Police Station Pathroda and as those documents were not produced by
the Police at the time of filing of charge sheet before the Court, therefore, for
consideration of relevance of the said documents, the complainant has a right to
produce the said document before the Court.
However, once the charge sheet is filed and the trial commences, any
additional evidence coming into the hands of the prosecution, the police can file a
supplementary charge sheet under section 173(8) and bring those additional pieces
of evidence which are of relevance during the trial before the Trial Court, which
was not available at the time when the charge sheet was filed under section 173(2).
That is what the trial court is saying in those three lines reproduced supra.
The ambit and scope of section 91 and section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are distinct
and different. Under section 91 Cr.P.C., it is an enabling provision, which
empowers the Court or the Police at the stage of an investigation, enquiry or trial to
call for such documents which are not in its possession from such persons who
may be in possession of the said documents or articles. It does not pre-suppose
or take into into consideration a situation where a particular document is already in
the hands of the prosecution to place the same on record of the trial Court where
any additional evidence coming into the hand of the prosecution after filing of the
Signature Not Verified
charge sheet under section 173(2), can still be placed on the record of the Trial
SAN
Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH
Court by the police by filing a supplementary charge sheet under section 173(8) of
SOLANKI
Date: 2022.04.29 16:38:59 IST
the Cr.P.C.. Therefore, this Court cannot fault the order passed by the learned
Trial Court and the same cannot be held to be capricious, unlawful or not in
accordance with law or arbitrary.
Under the circumstances, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove,
the petition is dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE
ss
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH
SOLANKI
Date: 2022.04.29 16:38:59 IST
