Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
CRA No. 4028/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4028 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAMESHWAR S/O SALAGRAM PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE KHOKRA KALAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
BRIJMOHAN S/O SHIV NARAYAN CHAURAISA, AGED ABOUT 54
2. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE KHOKRA
KALAN, BAJAR MOHALLA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
DAMODAR PATIDAR S/O JAMNAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 54
3. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE KHOKRA
KALAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI AMAR SINGH RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
1.
THROUGH POLICE STATION KALAPIPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
ARVIND PATIDAR S/O MANGILAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 34
2.
YEARS, OCCUPATION: N.A. KHOKRA KALA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE.)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE VIVEK
RUSIA passed the following:
ORDER
(Passed on 21st September, 2022)
Heard on the question of admission.
The present appeal is filed u/s. 372 of the Cr.P.C. by appellants
- : 2 :-
CRA No. 4028/2022
No.1 and 2 who made a complaint to the police at the instance of
appellant No.3.
At the very outset, the learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondent/State has raised an objection about the
maintainability of this appeal. According to him, the appeal u/s. 372 of
the Cr.P.C. is maintainable only at the instance of the victim.
Appellants No.1 and 2 are not the victims of the offence said to have
been committed by respondent No.3. Appellant No.3 is the victim but
he did not suffer any loss and he did not lodge any complaint to the
police, therefore, at his instance also, this appeal is not maintainable.
Learned Government Advocate further submits that "victim" is
defined as u/s. 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. and according to which, "victim"
means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason
of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged.
Since appellant No.3 did not suffer any loss or injury, therefore, he
cannot be termed a "victim". Hence this appeal is not maintainable.
As per the prosecution story, appellant No.3 contacted
appellants No.1 and 2 who are President and Secretary of Gram
Panchayat Kalapipal that he contacted respondent No.2 to secure a
loan from the financial institution. Respondent No.2 demanded
Rs.5,000/- and assured him that he would prepare the necessary
documents for obtaining the loan. He gave Rs.2,500/- in front of his
nephew Sachin. After a few days, respondent No.2 returned the
documents that the loan cannot be passed because of the defects in the
documents. Appellant No.3 handed over all those documents to
appellants No.1 and 2 to know the shortcomings in the documents.
Appellants No.1 and 2 examined those documents and found
that signature, seal, stamps and the letterhead of the Gram Panchayat
- : 3 :-
CRA No. 4028/2022
are the forged documents prepared by respondent No.2 and
accordingly, they made a written complaint to the Sub Divisional
Officer and Station House Officer, Police Station Kalapipal to inquire
into the matter.
After registration of the FIR, the documents were to the
Handwriting Expert and respondent No.2 was put to trial. After the
conclusion of the trial, respondent No.2 has been acquitted by the trial
Court and directed for the prosecution of appellants No.1 and 2 as
they have prepared the forged documents in order to falsely implicate
respondent No.2. Hence, this appeal u/s. 372 of the Cr.P.C. by
appellants No.1 and 2.
Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced below :
"372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided
- No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a
Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by
any other law for the time being in force :
Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer
an appeal against any order passed by the Court
acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence
or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal
shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies
against the order of conviction of such Court."
As rightly submitted by a learned Government Advocate that
Section 372 gives a right of appeal to a victim against any order
passed by any Court acquitting any accused or convicting for a lesser
offence. The word "victim" is defined as u/s. 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. In
the present case, at the most, appellant No.3 can be termed as a
"victim", who is said to have given Rs.2,500/- to respondent No.2, but
respondent No.2 has not been charged for the aforesaid act of cheating
to appellant No.3. The word "victim" means a person who has
suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for
- : 4 :-
CRA No. 4028/2022
which the accused person has been charged. Respondent No.2 has
been charged only for the preparation of forged documents (Article
'A-1" to A-5") by forging signatures of appellants No.1 and 2 and
using the original documents. Respondent No.2 was charged only for
the offence u/s. 467(5 counts) and 468(5 counts) of the I.P.C. and the
appellant No.3 did not lodge any FIR against respondent No.2,
therefore, at his instance also, appeal u/s. 372 of the Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable.
So far as appellants No.1 and 2 are concerned, they did not
lodge any report that they suffered any loss or injury by the act of
respondent No.2. In their evidence deposed before the Court, they did
not depose that they as well as Gram Panchayat suffered any loss of
reputation or injury.
Even otherwise, respondent No.2 has pleaded that because of
political enmities appellants No.1 and 2 have falsely implicated him as
his wife is working as a 'Panch' in the same Gram Panchayat and she
raises her voice against appellant No.1. In view of the above, this
appeal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed as not
maintainable. The certified copy of the impugned judgment be
returned to the appellants in order to avail remedy available under the
law.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ] [AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)]
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2022.09.22 14:41:22 +05'30'
