Shivam @ Shyamsundar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7926 MP

                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT GWALIOR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                ON THE 12th OF MAY 2023
           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 618 of 2023


     BETWEEN:-

1.   SHIVAM @ SHYAMSUNDAR SHARMA S/O
     SHRI RAJESH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 21
     YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 147
     ADITYA NAGAR MORAR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

2.   RAJESH SHARMA S/O LT NP SHARMA,
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O 147 ADITYA
     NAGAR MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

3.   MAMTA    SHARMA    W/O    SANDEEP
     SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O 147
     ADITYA NAGAR MORAR GWALIOR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   [email protected] PRASAD S/O DHANIRAM,
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O 100 CP
     COLONY MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
                                            ........PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL - ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
     INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH
     POLICE STATION MORAR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

2.   GANGA SINGH BHADORIYA S/O KEDAR
     SINGH BHADORIYA, AGED ABOUT 60
     YEARS, R/O 369 CP COLONY MORAR
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            ........RESPONDENT
                                            2



    (BY SHRI V.P.S. TOMAR- PANEL LAWYER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants against the order of framing of charges dated 05.12.2022 passed by 8 th Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in S.T. No.505/2022 whereby the charges under Section 195-A, 34 and 506 of IPC have been framed against the applicants.

Counsel for the applicants has submitted that inspite of non- availability of any cogent evidence on record, learned court below has erred in imposing 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 and 506 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicants 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 the charges in the same case deserves to be quashed .

Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the charges have 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 witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under Section 195A of Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860).

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, r/w 34, 506 of IPC and as such the same so far as it relates to Section 195-A, r/w 34, 506 of IPC is concerned, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Consequently, this petition is allowed. Order dated 05.12.2022 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in S.T. No.505/2022 whereby the charges under Section 195-A, 34 and 506 of IPC have been framed against the applicants, is hereby set aside.

This revision is disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

Digitally signed                                 (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
by YOGENDRA
OJHA
                                                         JUDGE
 ojha
Date: 2023.05.12
17:50:50 +05'30'