Priyank Neema vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4322 MP

                               1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
              AT I N D O R E
                          BEFORE
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

               ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2023

           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 283 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
PRIYANK NEEMA S/O SHREE GOVINDDAS NEEMA, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O FLAT NO.
403, F-WING SPRING GROVE UNO LOKHANDWALA TOWNSHIP
KANDIWALI EAST MUMBAI 400101 AND R/O 94, BHAKT
PRAHALAD NAGAR BIYABANI INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....APPLICANT
(MR. GOURAV SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT.

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
1. OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION WOMEN CELL
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   BHAWNA NEEMA W/O SHRI PRIYANK NEEMA, AGED ABOUT
2. 27 YEARS, 168, ANJANI NAGAR, AERODRUM ROAD, OPPOSITE
   KALANI NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                         .....NON-APPLICANTS
(MR. RAGHVENDRA SINGH BAIS, ADVOCATE FOR STATE AND MS.
BHAWNA NEEMA, NON-APPLICANT NO.2 IS PRESENT IN PERSON
BEFORE THIS COURT).
      This revision coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:

                           ORDER

The present criminal revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, whereby the trial Court has rejected the

application of the applicant for recording the voice sample of non-applicant No.2 in RCT No.1357/2017.

The facts in brief are that non-applicant No.2 is the wife applicant and has filed an FIR against the present applicant, his parents, Govind Das Neema and Madhu Neema and his sister Purvi Neema under Section 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of IPC at Crime No.36/2017.

That, a audio clip of the conversation between applicant, non-applicant No.2 and their family members have been filed by the applicant before the learned Court, but in her deposition before the learned Court, the non-applicant No.2 has denied the contents of the voice sample, even the non-applicant No.2 has denied her voice in the audio clip. Therefore, on date 18.02.2012 an application for recording of voice sample of non-applicant No.2 has been filed by the applicant before the learned Court for the purpose of examination of the voice sample by an expert.

It is submitted that in the voice recording the complainant has not made any allegation of harassment and demand of dowry against the applicant and therefore the trial Court ought to have given a fair opportunity to the applicant by providing recording of voice sample to the complainant. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision P. No.577/2009, Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Handa vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi.

It is not a matter of dispute that non-applicant No.2 - Bhawna was married to Priyank on 03.12.2014 and almost after one month of marriage, disputes and differences arose between them. In the written complaint submitted to the police, it has been alleged by Bhawna - non-applicant No.2 that she was being constantly harassed and humiliated by mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and husband with regard to demand of dowry and that all the four were constantly demanding Rs.10.00 lacs and the Car in the dowry and in that regard, she was being constantly subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was also being beaten by her husband. Further allegation is that on 25.08.2015 all the four abused and assaulted her and driven her out of the matrimonial home demanding Rs.10.00 lacs and Car in the dowry.

The non-applicant No.2 submits that prior to this, the applicant never produced any audio recording and made requests for recording of her voice sample. He has filed earlier applications for quashment of FIR which were registered as MCRC No.6500/2017 and MCRC No.6502/2017 and the aforesaid applications were dismissed. It is further submitted that the aforesaid applications have been filed in order to delay the trial of present case. The present case is pending since the year 2017. The applications have been filed as an abuse of process of law in order to delay the trial. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed

in CRM-M-31015-2020 decided on 17.05.2022, where the Court has held as under:-

17. There is no dispute to the settled position of law that Section 311 Cr.PC confers a wide power, however, the said power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. Such a power is not be exercised if the Court is of the view that an application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law. Besides, where the prosecution evidence had been closed long back and reasons for non-examination of the witnesses earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witnesses at belated stage is likely to cause prejudice and should not be allowed. Apart therefrom, while dealing with such an application, the Court should not encourage filing of frivolous successive applications itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court refers to the principles relating to the exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.PC in the judgment of Manju Devi (supra). The relevant extract thereof is reproduced as under:-

10. It needs hardly any emphasis that the discretionary powers like those under Section 311 Cr.PC are essentially intended to ensure that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity in so far as the evidence is concerned as also to ensure that no prejudice is caused to anyone. The principles underlying Section 311 Cr.PC and amplitude of the powers of the Court there-under have been explained by this Court in several decisions. 1. Natasha Singh v. CBI (State):

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The statement of prosecutrix (non-applicant No.2) has already been recorded and the cross-examination has also been conducted. In the cross-examination, she has

specifically denied her voice in the audio clip and therefore the burden was on the applicant to prove that the voice was of the complainant. Apart from that, the application for voice sample of the non-applicant No.2 has been filed after detailed cross- examination of the non-applicant No.2. The judgment relied by the Counsel for the applicant would not apply to the facts of the present case as the applicant has been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutrix and lead defence evidence.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly the criminal revision filed by the applicant stands dismissed.

                                                         (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
  Arun/-                                                        JUDGE

Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR
Date: 2023.03.21 19:15:22
+05'30'