Ramesh Thakre vs Dayaram Sahu
2023 Latest Caselaw 11119 MP

                                 1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                      ON THE 18 th OF JULY, 2023
               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9491 of 2016

BETWEEN:-
RAMESH THAKRE S/O SHRI BALCHAND, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIRONJ
ROAD    LATERI, DISTRICT- VIDISHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                             .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA- ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    DAYARAM SAHU S/O SHRI DAULAT SINGH R/O
      ANANDPUR ROAD LATERI, DISTRICT- VIDISHA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    ATMARAM    SANWARE S/O DEVKARAN R/O
      KHIRKHIYA,  DISTRICT- HARDA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    SMT. SUNITA W/O MOHAR SINGH R/O MAJRA
      MOHANPURA TEHSIL-     LATERI, DISTRICT-
      VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    SMT.SEEMA W/O SANTOSH, R/O TEHSIL LATERI,
      R/O VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    SMT.SEETA DEVI W/O RANDHIR THAKRE R/O
      WARD NO.01 TEHSIL LATERI, DISTRICT- VIDISHA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    HAFEEZ BEG S/O NAWAB BEG MAJRA NAUKHEDA
      TEHSIL- LATERI, DISTRICT- VIDISHA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMEER KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE)

      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                    2
following:
                                    ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashment of the order dated 23/05/2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.14/2016 by 1st Additional Session Judge, Sironj, District- Vidisha (M.P.), whereby the order dated 01/02/2016 passed in private complaint No.26/2016 by which cognizance has been taken against the respondents under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of IPC has been set-aside.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has filed a private complaint before the Magistrate against the respondents who were

Parshad and employees a of Nagar Palika Parishad, Lateri, District- Vidisha (M.P.) as they have constructed only 829 toilets on papers out of 1053 sanctioned toilets. On the complaint, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of IPC. Thereafter, respondents preferred the Criminal Revision before the Revisional Court and while deciding the revision, Revisional Court came to the conclusion that at the relevant point time, respondents were public servants and they were having the protection of Section 197 & 203 of Cr.P.C. is required.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and relied upon the judgment of the corodinate Bench of this Court in the case of Neelam Gandhi (Smt.) Vs. Laljiram Badkur [2013 (III) MPWN 18] and also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.K. Kartikeya Vs. Rahul Jain [2014(III)MPWN 8].

After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the order passed by the Revisional Court, this Court is of the view that no interference is

warranted. Accordingly, this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR JUDGE RAHUL SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

rahul 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d 0cde4dee473fe77953f5,

PARIHAR pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D48 7, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD 4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2023.07.20 11:54:47 +05'30'