Neelu @ Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9486 MP

                                                     1
                 IN         THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                          ON THE 23 rd OF JUNE, 2023
                                   MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25573 of 2023

               BETWEEN:-
               1.          NEELU @ SUNIL S/O SHRI CHOTELAL SHARMA,
                           AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GORAM,
                           POLICE STATION BHAROLI DISTT. BHIND
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

               2.          MUNEEM S/O SHRI NATHURAM SHARMA, AGED
                           ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GORAM, POLICE
                           STATION BHAROLI DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

               3.          UMESH @ TILLU S/O SHRI NATHURAM SHARMA,
                           AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE GORAM,
                           POLICE STATION BHAROLI DISTT. BHIND
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONERS
               (BY SHRI ATUL GUPTA- ADVOCATE)

               AND
               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
               STATION HAZIRA, DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
               PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENT
               (BY SHRI P.S.RAGHUWANSHI- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE)

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

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 9.1.2015 and 21.7.2015 passed by the 3rd Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in S.T. No.754/2014 whereby the charge Signing time: 26-06-2023 03:01:18 PM

under Section 195-A of IPC has been framed against the petitioners.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in spite of non-availability of any cogent evidence on record, learned court below has erred in framing the charge under aforesaid section. As per versions of First Information Report and statements of witnesses, it is clear that the accused persons did not do any act which comes under the purview of Section 195-A of IPC.

Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the entire proceeding is vitiated on account of the legal position as under Section 195-A of Cr.P.C. only a complaint can be entertained in respect of an offence committed under Section 195-A of IPC. In support of his contention, the

counsel has relied upon the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.3385/2017 (Ratanlal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) as also the order dated 11.09.2014 in M.Cr.C. No.76/2014 (Smt. Lalita Yadav & others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh). Thus, it is submitted that when the FIR in itself could not have been lodged, the order of framing of charge in the same case deserves to be quashed.

Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the charge has been framed after taking cognizance of the FIR.

So far as the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Lalita Yadav (supra) is concerned, this Court while allowing the petition has observed as under :-

"I have gone through the FIR and other facts and circumstances of the case. Section 195-A of the CrPC. reads thus:-

195A. Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening, etc.- A Signature Not Verified witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to Signed by: MADHU an offence under Section 195A of Indian Penal Code. (45 of SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 26-06-2023 1860).

03:01:18 PM

A bare reading of Section 195-A of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a private complaint is necessary for taking the cognizance of the offence under Section 195-A of the IPC but at the same time there is no necessity to file private complaint in respect of the other offences. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Police has mistakenly registered the case under Section 195-A of the IPC and same is liable to be set aside. Other offences are cognizable and triable by the competent Court without any private complaint. In these circumstances, the impugned Crime No.643/2013 is liable to be set aside so far as it relates to Section 195-A of the IPC"

Similarly, in the present case also the FIR has been registered at the instance of the complainant under Section 195-A of IPC and as such the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Consequently, this petition is allowed. Order dated 9.1.2015 and 21.7.15 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in S.T. No.754/2014 framing charge under Section 195-A of IPC are hereby set aside.

This petition is disposed of.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 26-06-2023 03:01:18 PM