Brajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2877 MP

                          1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        CRA No.1599/2022
               Brajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

Gwalior, Dated : 02/03/2022

      Shri S.S. Rajput, Counsel for the appellants.

      Shri C.P. Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Rinku Shakya, Counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.

Case diary is available.

2. This first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act against the order dated 31.1.2022 passed by Special

Judge (Atrocities Act) Guna, thereby rejecting the anticipatory bail

application.

3. The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime

No.22/2022 registered by Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna for

offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 427, 506, 34 of IPC and

under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that

Ramswaroop, Prahlad, Hukum Singh and Mardan Singh are the joint

owners of survey No.29 area 0.0940 hectares. Ramswaroop and

Prahlad had sold their share to the complainant whereas the

complainant and her husband has forcibly taken possession of the

share belonging to Hukum Singh and Mardan Singh in respect of

which a suit for partition is pending. The husband of the complainant

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1599/2022 Brajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

is working in the Police Department and by misusing his position he is

constantly threatening the appellants to falsely implicate them. The

allegations that on 20.1.2022 the appellants had forcibly harvested the

crop and were grazing the cattle and when it was objected, then they

were abused and humiliated as well as beaten is false.

5. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for

the respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant. It is

submitted by Shri Rinku Shakya that in fact Hukum Singh and

Mardan Singh had also sold their property by receiving their

consideration amount but the sale deed has not been executed and it is

incorrect to say that the complainant or her husband had forcibly

encroached upon the land which was in the share of Mardan Singh and

Hukum Singh.

6. Accordingly, by order dated 21.2.2022, the counsel for the

complainant was directed to file bank statement of the husband of the

complainant to show that he had paid consideration amount to the co-

sharers as well as to file a copy of the information given by her

husband to the Department about the purchase of the land in the name

of his wife.

7. On 24.2.2022, Shri Shakya sought time to supply the

information sought by this Court. Since this Court was suspicious of

the fact that the complainant is trying to linger on the matter without

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1599/2022 Brajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

any rhyme or reason, therefore, Shri Shakya was directed to disclose

the place of posting of the husband of the complainant. Initially, the

counsel for the complainant expressed his ignorance about the place of

posting and, accordingly, he was directed to seek instructions on

telephone and the case was deferred for five minutes. Thereafter, Shri

Shakya informed that the husband of the complainant namely Shivlal

Patil is posted in Police Station Traffic, District Guna and,

accordingly, the Superintendent of police, Guna was directed to seize

the bank account of Shri Shivlal Patil as well as the complainant Smt.

Bhagwati Bai Patil of the year 2018 to show that the husband of the

complainant namely Shivlal Patil had paid the entire consideration

amount for purchasing the property by registered sale deed dated

7.12.2018. The Superintendent of Police, Guna was also directed to

inform as to whether any information was given by Shivlal Patil,

regarding purchase of property in the name of his wife or not?

8. Accordingly, in compliance of order dated 24.2.2022, the

Superintendent of Police, Guna has filed its reply with the following

findings:

^^3- ;g fd] foHkkx ds ikl dk;Zokgd iz/kku vkj{kd f'koyky dh iRuh Jherh Hkxorh ckbZ ds cSad [kkrs ds laca/k esa tkudkjh ugh gSA rnkuqdze esa dk;Zokgd iz/kku vkj{kd dks fnukad 25-02-2022 dks i= tkjh dj Jherh Hkxorh ckbZ ds cSad ,dkm.V rFkk vkbZ-,Q-,l-lh- dksM dh tkudkjh pkgh xbZ gS] tks vizkIr gSA izkIr gksrs gh ,d dk;Z fnol ds Hkhrj ,dkm.V LVsVes.V fof/kor izkIr fd;k tkosxkA mDr i= fnukad 25-02- 2022 dh izfr izn'kZ ,&2 gSA

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1599/2022 Brajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 4- ;g fd] dk;Zokgd iz/kku vkj{kd f'koyky tkVo dh lsok&iqfLrdk rFkk foHkkx ds fjdkMZ dk fujh{k.k djus ij ;g ik;k x;k fd iz/kku vkj{kd f'koyky tkVo }kjk o"kZ 2007 esa Lo;a ds uke ls [email protected] dz; djus gsrq vuqefr pkgh xbZ Fkh] ftl ij ls t;sZ vkns'k fnukad 19-01-2007 ls f'koyky tkVo dks 1000 oxZ QqV IykaV dz; djus gsrq vuqefr iznku dh xbZ Fkh mlds i'pkr vkt fnukad rd f'koyky tkVo }kjk Lo;a ds uke ls vFkok viuh iRuh ds uke ls [email protected] dz; djus gsrq dksbZ vuqefr ugh pkgh xbZ gS vkSj u gh foHkkx }kjk mDrkuqdze esa dksbZ vuqefr iznku dh xbZ] ftldh iqf"V izHkkjh iqfyl v/kh{kd xquk }kjk tkjh izek.khdj.k fnukad 25-02-2022 ls gksrh gSA mDr vkns'k fnukad 19-01-2007 ,oa izek.khdj.k fnukad 25-02-22 dh izfr izn'kZ ,&3 gSA^^

9. From the bank account statement of the husband of the

complainant it was clear that there is no entry in the bank account of

Shivlal Patil which may indicate that any amount was utilized for

purchasing the land in question. Accordingly, the counsel for the

complainant submitted that in fact the father-in-law of the complainant

had gifted certain lands to her and to her son Mukesh Kumar and the

crop proceeds were sold in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kumbhraj

District Guna and the said amount was utilized for purchasing the

land. The counsel for the appellants has also provided the photocopy

of the receipts issued by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Kumbhraj, District

Guna on 12.11.2007, 27.7.2010 and 1.11.2012, 20.11.2017 which

were in the name of the son of the complainant. The date of birth of

Mukesh Patil son of the complainant is 26.3.1992 which is evident

from the photocopy of the Rin Pustika which was provided by the

counsel for the complainant. From the Rin Pustika it is clear that the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1599/2022 Brajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

property was recorded in the name of Mukesh Kumar minor son of the

complainant through his grandfather Kishori Lal. The complainant has

not provided any document to show that Kishori Lal, the father-in-law

of the complainant was holding any land or had gifted any property to

his grand son Mukesh Kumar or daughter-in-law Smt. Bhagwati Bai

(complainant). No gift deed has been placed on record.

10. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the husband of the

complainant is manipulating the properties by purchasing Benami in

the name of his relatives.

11. Be that whatever it may.

12. The conduct of the complainant in avoiding the hearing of this

case by this Court is writ large. On 24.2.2022 also, the counsel for the

complainant had made an attempt to get the matter adjourned.

Thereafter, the matter was listed on 28.2.2022. On the said date, this

Court was not available and the case was listed before the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court. On 28.2.2022, the following order was passed:

"Learned proxy counsel submits that arguing counsel Shri S.S. Rajpoot for the applicant is not available today, therefore, he prays for a short adjournment.

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the same on the ground that applicant is pressurizing the complainant to compromise the matter, therefore, he prays for hearing of this case today itself.

Learned State counsel prays for a short adjournment to comply with the order dated

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1599/2022 Brajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 24/02/2022 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

In the interest of justice, by way of last indulgence, time is granted to the applicant to argue the matter.

List this matter on 02/03/2022 before appropriate Bench."

13. From the above-mentioned order, it appears that the counsel for

the complainant was trying very hard to get the matter decided by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order to avoid the questions which

were put by this Court.

14. Be that whatever it may.

15. The conduct of the complainant cannot be appreciated

specifically in the light of the fact that the even in absence of any sale

deed by Mardan Singh and Hukum Singh the complainant has

encroached upon their share. There is nothing on record to show that

any legitimate amount was used for purchasing the properties. No

information was ever given by the husband of the complainant to the

Department about the purchase of the property in the name of his wife

or transfer of the property in the name of his son Mukesh Patil and his

wife Smt. Bhagwati Bai.

16. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Guna is directed to

conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the husband of the complainant

in accumulating the properties in the name of his relatives without any

source and information to the Department.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1599/2022 Brajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

17. In view of the specific statement taken by the complainant that

Hukum Singh and Mardan Singh had not executed the sale deed in

respect of their share, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

complainant had no right or title to encroach upon their property.

18. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that prima facie no offence under Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out and,

accordingly, the bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not

be applicable.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without

commenting on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed subject to

condition that if the appellants appear before the Investigating Officer

(Arresting Officer) on or before 9.3.2022, they shall be released on

bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount each to

the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

20. The appellants shall make themselves available for interrogation

by the Investigating Officer as and when required. They shall further

abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section

438 of Cr. P. C.

21. It is made clear that in case if the appellants fail to appear

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.1599/2022 Brajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Authority) on or before

9.3.2022, then this order shall lose its effect and the Investigating

Officer shall be at liberty to take them in custody.

22. In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the

case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021

in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of

bail be sent to the complainant.

23. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to Superintendent

of Police, Guna for necessary information and compliance.

CC as per rules.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2022.03.03 16:41:53 +05'30'