Devendra Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20614 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Devendra Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                                                               1
                            IN       THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1663 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DEVENDRA MALVIYA S/O VISHNU PRASAD MALVIYA,
                           AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 110
                           SILVER PARK MANGLIYA DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           ( BY SHRI SAMAR JEET SINGH CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SPECIAL TASK
                           FORCE THRUOGH POLICE STATION S.T.F. DISTRICT
                           BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA GA )

                                    This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

The petitioner has filed present revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14/12/2022 passed in Sessions Trial no. 812/2022 by 28th ASJ, Indore, whereby application filed under section 451 and 457 of Cr.PC for seeking interim custody of seized documents, mobile phones etc has been rejected by the trial Court.

2/ Brief facts of the case are that complainant Yadubendra Mishra had filed a complaint before police by stating that he has paid certain amount to the

accused persons for getting job in private companies as well as government institutions, but accused persons neither provided him any job, nor refunded his amount paid to him and issued fake appointment letter to him and committed forgery by creating false and fabricated documents. Accordingly, offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC has been registered against the accused persons/s During investigation, some of the mobile phones, ATM Cards, Passbooks, Keypad, desktop computer, printer, driving licence, letter pad and some other documents have been recovered from the possession of present petitioner and other accused persons.

3/ The petitioner had preferred petition under section 451 and 457 of

Cr.P.C for seeking interim custody of the seized property to them, but the same has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 14/12/2022 by stating that the seized documents and articles are subject matter of trial. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision.

4/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is against the law and facts available on record. Matter has been amicably settled between the complainant/s and the accused persons and have filed joint compromise petition . The seized ATM cards, mobile phones, passbook etc are required by the petitioner in due course of business, otherwise, purpose of conducting ATM cards and use of mobile phones would get frustrated, hence he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the seized articles be released on interim custody to the petitioner till final disposal of trial. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. sTate of Gujrat (Special Leave Petition(Cri) no. 2745/2002)

5/ Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that it is a case of fraud of giving jobs in private institutions as well as government institutions and the seized articles are the subject matter of trial, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for interim custody of the seized articles.

6/ Considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations as also taken note of the fact that during trial, ATM cards, mobile phones, cheeque books and other documents have been recovered from the possession of the accused person/s; offence registered against the petitioner and other co-accused persons are under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, therefore, all these documents and articles are required during trial and the finding given by the trial Court that the seized articles are the subject matter of trial; although compromise petition has been filed by the complainant and the accused persons, but it is not disposed of and under consideration 7/ In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from perversity, illegality and irregularity, therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order.

8/ Accordingly, present criminal revision is hereby rejected.

CC as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE amol