Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman Arora Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 6th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.2541 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
AMAN ARORA JAIN S/O SMT. CHITRALEKHA
ARORA & SHRI. RAJESH JAIN; AGE- 29 YEARS;
BUSINESS- PROPRIETOR OF VEGAN FOOD
MANUFACTURING UNIT, EDUCATION:
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (MECH. ENG.);
R/O 3RD BUILDING, AAJVEGAN NATUREFOODS,
IN FONT OF HANUMAN TEMPLE, KAMAL BAAG
COLONY, SHINDE KI CHHAWANI, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) IN 474001;
MOBILE NO: +91-9425794435.
........PETITIONER
(APPLICANT IN PERSON)
AND
1. INVESTIGATION OFFICER (I.O), POLICE
STATION INDERGANJ, DISTRICT
GWALIOR- MADHYA PRADESH.
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER (S.H.O),
POLICE STATION INDERGANJ, DISTRICT
GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH.
3. CIRCLE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
(C.S.P) - INDERGANJ, DISTRICT
GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH.
4. PROSECUTRIX/COMPLAINANT - MADAM
SAPNA TIWARI; AGE- 28 YEARS;
FATHER'S NAME- MAHESH CHAND
TIWARI & MOTHER'S NAME- ARCHANA
TIWARI; ADDRESS- SHINDE SAHAB KA
BADA, HANUMAN MANDIR KE PASS,
SHINDE KI CHHAWANI, GWALIOR,
MADHYA PRADESH- IN; MOBILE NO: + 91-
7999327494.
2
........RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO
3/STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed
the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred
against the order dated 28/10/2022, passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.312/2022, whereby
order dated 2/9/2022 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case bearing RCT No.5498/2021 rejecting
petitioner's application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was affirmed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 11/4/2021 at
about 14:40 hours prosecutrix aged about 28 years lodged an FIR
against the petitioner at Police Station Inderganj, District Gwalior for
the offences punishable under Sections 294, 354-A and 509 of IPC,
wherein during investigation, petitioner filed written objection
challenging the identity of the prosecutrix alongwith other objections
stating therein that she had intentionally mentioned her incorrect
father's name and age in her FIR to conceal her identity. City
Superintendent of Police, Inderganj, District Gwalior vide letter dated
24/8/2021 directed the concerned SHO to verify the identity of the
prosecutrix along with other objections raised by the petitioner. After
verifying the prosecutrix identity and after completion of investigation,
charge-sheet bearing criminal case No.RCT 5498/2021 was filed against
the petitioner before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gwalior. During trial, petitioner filed an application dated 15/7/2022
under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the prosecutrix to
submit documents with regard to her identity. Learned Trial Court vide
impugned order dated 2/9/2022 rejected petitioner's application on the
ground that petitioner and prosecutrix were known to each other,
therefore, documents with regard to the identity of the prosecutrix are
not required in the matter. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed
revision petition bearing Cr.R. No.312/2022 before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, which was also dismissed vide
impugned order dated 28/10/2022.
3. Petitioner in person appeared before the Court and prayed to issue
notice of the petition to the respondents. He by referring certified copy
of the voter list and Samagra Portal about the details of the family
members of the person to whom prosecutrix has stated as her father,
submits that she in her written complaint dated 11/4/2021, on the basis
of which FIR has been lodged, and also in her statement recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as statement recorded under Section 164
of Cr.P.C. stated her age as 28 years instead of 36 years. In her written
complaint and statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. her
father's name has wrongly been mentioned. In her statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. her address has been mentioned in place of
her father's name. Therefore, documents viz. birth certificate, Adhar
card etc. are required to be produced to ascertain her identity for which
he submitted an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Learned Trial
Court as well as learned Revisional Court have committed error in
rejecting his application, hence, both the impugned orders passed by the
aforesaid Courts are liable to be set aside, hence, the same may be set
aside and prosecutrix may be directed to produce the documents about
her identity. Petitioner, in support of his aforesaid submissions, placed
reliance in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam in Criminal Appeal No.486-487 of
2009 decided on 18/3/2009 and M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs.
M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. Ors. in Appeal (Cri.) No.858
of 2001 decided on 27/8/2001.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3/State has opposed
the prayer and submits that admittedly petitioner and prosecutrix both
are residents of the same locality and are known to each other.
Petitioner himself stated in his application that a dispute with regard to
vacating the premises of Hanuman Temple is going on in between the
petitioner and prosecutrix, therefore, identity of the prosecutrix is not in
dispute. Hence, documents with regard to the identity of the prosecutrix
are not required to be produced. Learned Trial Court as well as learned
Revisional Court have not committed any error in rejecting his
application. Petition is devoid of merits, hence, it may be rejected.
5. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person before the Court, as
well as learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3/State and perused the
record.
6. Upon perusal of the record, this fact appears undisputed that the
petitioner and prosecutrix both are resident of Sindhe Ka Baag, Ward
No.34, Gwalior and their houses are situated opposite to each other.
Petitioner has challenged the age of the prosecutrix and also her father's
name only on the basis that in the Samagra Portal her name is not
mentioned in the details of family members of the person to whom she
is stating as her father and also challenged her identity on the basis of
voter list, wherein the name of father of a 32 years' old lady having
same name as that of the prosecutrix, but with different father's name
mentioned at serial No.778 of the voter list.
7. From the aforesaid voter list, it is apparent that the father's name
of the prosecutrix mentioned in the FIR as well as in her statement
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is same as that of the father's
name of a 25 years' old lady mentioned at serial no.781 of the voter list
having the same name as that of the prosecutrix, whose photograph is
also similar to that of the photograph of the prosecutrix affixed on her
statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In view of the
aforesaid, only on the ground that in the statement of the prosecutrix
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in place of her father's name her
address has been written, at this stage, it cannot be said that her identity
is disputed.
8. In view of the aforesaid, learned Trial Court as well as learned
Revisional Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in
dismissing petitioner's application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, notice of the petition is not required to be issued to the
respondent No.4. The petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2023.02.08 11:58:50 +05'30'
