Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Pradeep Narayan Khare on 1 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31546 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE CHOTELAL, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL SANCHALAK RAILWAY TEEN PULIYA
CHILDREN PALACE SCHOOL NEW KANCHANPUR,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SANGEETA GUPTA W/O AJAY KUMAR, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL RAILWAY TEEN PULIYA CHILDREN
PALACE SCHOOL NEW KANCHANPUR DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PRADEEP NARAYAN KHARE S/O SHRI B.P KHARE,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PVT. JOB
2389/1 NEW KANCHANPUR P.S ADHARTAL
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRIMAN AJAY SHRMA S/O SHRI B.P. SHARMA
OCCUPATION: CURRENT BUILDING OFFICER
NAGAR NIGAM PRESENTLY ENGINEER NAGAR
NIGAM JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRI MANISH TADSE SUB ENGINEER BUILDING
BRANCH NAGAR NIGAM JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SHRI S.P.S. BAGHEL INCHARGE POLICE STATION
OMTI, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANDESH DIXIT - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 2/6/2024
11:34:13 AM
2
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking
quashment of the order dated 03-07-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge Court No.08 (Electricity Act), Jabalpur.
2 . It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent No.1/complainant had filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur under Section 156(3) of CrPC and alleged that
the present petitioner and three others were guilty of forgery and cheating, as in
violation of the statutory provisions, construction was being carried out by the
petitioner herein, in the restricted area.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
complaint was taken up for the purpose of its registration on 09-01-2023, and
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur after dealing with the rival
contentions, rejected the complaint.
4. The order passed by the trial Court was assailed by the respondents
by filing a revision petition. The revisional Court vide order dated 03-07-2023
set aside the order passed by the trial Court, dated 09-01-2023 and remitted
back the matter to the trial Court with a direction to call for the report from the
concerned Police Station and then decide the complaint under Section 156(3) of
the CrPC.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the
trial Court after considering the entire material on record concluded, that no
case was made out and accordingly rejected the complaint, subsequently the
order pertaining to remand is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial
Court while passing the order, has referred the communication sent by the
Station House Officer, Police Station, Omti to the Superintendent of Police,
Jabalpur. The Station House Officer submitted in detail, in his report, that the
dispute was of civil nature and there were no ingredients of commission of any
offence. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel that the order impugned
passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the
present case, the complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was
rejected by the trial Court without calling for any report from the Police. It is
also contended by the learned counsel that as there was no report by the Police,
yet on the basis of only communication which was made by the Station House
Officer, Police Station, Omti to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, the
Court proceeded to reject the complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the
CrPC. This aspect of the matter was taken note of, and accordingly the
revisional Court while remitting the matter back directed the trial Court to first
call report from the concerned Police Station then to proceed further. Thus,
submits that no interference is warranted in the present petition.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,
a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court dated 09-01-2023 reflects, that
the report from the Police Station concerned was requisitioned by the trial
Court and only on the basis of a communication between the police officials,
the Court proceeded to dismiss the complaint.
9. The revisional Court in para 26 of the impugned judgment also took
note of the fact that, a preliminary enquiry was being conducted by the
concerned Police Station and before any report could be submitted, the trial
Court passed the order dated 09-01-2023. Thus, it was concluded that the
order was passed at a premature stage without awaiting report from the
concerned Police Station. It is further evident from a perusal of para 29 of the
order of the revisional Court, that it remitted the matter back to the trial Court to
first call for the report from the concerned Police Station and then to deal with
the complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
10. In the considered view of this Court, without calling for any report
from the Police, the trial Court could not have dismissed the complaint vide
order dated 09-01-2023 and the impugned order passed the revisional Court,
dated 03-07-2023 is impeccable and it has not committed any error while
passing the impugned order. Accordingly, no case is made out to warrant
interference in the impugned order passed by the revisional Court.
11. Consequently, the instant petition being sans substance, stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
