Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sarika Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C No.12179/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.12179 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SARIKA SHRIVASTAVA W/O SHRI
HRIDESH SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SOCIAL WORKER,
R/O SHIKSHAK COLONY, KHAJRI, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DR. HRIDESH SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE SHRI
S.C. SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED UPPER DIVISION
TEACHER R/O SHIKSHAK COLONY KHAJRI
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI PRATEEK DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS POLICE STATION KOTWALI
CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. KIRAN CHOPDE W/O BHAJAN LAL
CHOPDE OCCUPATION: PRESIDENT CHILD
WELFARE COMMITTEE CHHINDWARA R/O
BEHIND NAGAR NIGAM GALI NO. 4 WARD
NO. 30 BADWAN CHHINDWARA, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. LALIT SAHU S/O NOT KNOWN
OCCUPATION: MEMBER CHILD WELFARE
COMMITTEE CHHINDWARA R/O BEHIND
NAGAR NIGAM GALI NO. 4 WARD NO. 30
BADWAN CHHINDWARA DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 05-Mar-24
4:59:19 PM
2 M.Cr.C No.12179/2022
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL -
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND RESPONDENTS NO.2 &
3 BY SHRI G.S. BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)
............................................................................................................................................
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking following relief:-
"1. To quash, impugned FIR dated 07.07.2021
(Ann.P/1), bearing Crime No.0345 for
offences under section 186, 189 & 34 of
IPC, registered at P.S. Kotwali,
Chhindwara (M.P.). Accordingly, also
quash subsequent proceedings, if any
initiated in pursuance to the impugned Fir.
2. To call for the entire Records relating to
impugned FIR dated 07.07.2021
(Annx.P/1) record of subsequent
proceedings for kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court;
3. Any other relief deemed fit on facts &
circumstances of instant case."
2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that FIR has been
lodged by Manishraj Singh Bhadoriya alleging that on 15/06/2021
hearing was going on before CWC in respect of an important issue
concerning juvenile. At that time, applicant No.2, who is a Teacher and
his wife came along with file of the Society and by interfering and
interrupting in the proceedings insisted that he should sign the same and
should affix the seal. Since hearing was going on, therefore Committee
instructed him to come after one hour. After hearing it, applicant No.2
threatened the Chairman that as to whether he is signing or not,
otherwise he would take care of him and by extending that threat he
went out and also threatened a lady who was party in the ongoing
proceedings by giving his visiting card. In the meanwhile, applicant
No.1 who is the head of News for Inside Society Chhindwara and was
also a correspondent came along with two Mikes. One was of DD News
and also started recording the proceedings by her mobile and started
putting questions to the Chairman. Applicants by putting pressure on the
CWC were trying to get recognition of their Faster Care Society,
whereas said Society has multiple loop holes and only after removing
those drawbacks any further action could have been taken. It was
alleged that CWC performs judicial work and interference in the judicial
work is against the law.
3. Challenging the FIR, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants
that no FIR in respect of offence under Sections 186, 189, 34 of IPC can
be lodged in the light of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and only the complaint
could have been made by the Authority or by the Court.
4. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondents No.2 & 3. It is submitted that there is no bar on lodging of
FIR. The only bar is for the Trial Court to take cognizance of the same.
It is further submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Zaid Pathan and Others Vs. State of M.P. decided on 22/12/2020
in M.Cr.C. No.32779/2020 (Indore Bench) has held that in case if
instead of filing a complaint, final report is filed and concerning Court
takes cognizance without filing the complaint, then applicants therein
shall have right to assail the same because there is no bar for the Police
to register the FIR. Counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 has also relied
upon the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Ramesh Mendola Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh decided on
28/06/2022 in M.Cr.C. No.32126/2022 (Indore Bench).
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"2. Definitions.- In this Code, unless the context
otherwise requires,-
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) "complaint" means any allegation made
orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view
to his taking action under this Code, that some
person, whether known or unknown, has
committed an offence, but does not include a
police report.
Explanation.- A report made by a police
officer in a case which discloses, after
investigation, the commission of a non-
cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a
complaint; and the police officer by whom such
report is made shall be deemed to be the
complainant;
7. Thus, it is clear from explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. that in
case if charge-sheet is filed in non-cognizable offence, then said charge-
sheet shall be treated as complaint and investigating officer shall be
treated as complainant.
8. Furthermore, FIR has been lodged for offence under Sections 186,
189, 34 of IPC. There is no bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. with
respect to offence under Section 189 of IPC.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ushaben Vs. Kishorbhai
Chunilal Talpada and Others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 353 has held
as under:-
"14. We must now turn to Section 198-A of the
Code. It reads thus:
"198-A. Prosecution of
offences under Section 498-A of the
Penal Code, 1860.--No court shall
take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Section 498-A of
the Penal Code, 1860 except upon a
police report of facts which
constitute such offence or upon a
complaint made by the person
aggrieved by the offence or by her
father, mother, brother, sister or by
her father's or mother's brother or
sister or, with the leave of the court,
by any other person related to her by
blood, marriage or adoption."
15. A conjoint reading of the above provisions
makes it clear that a complaint under Section 494
IPC must be made by the aggrieved person.
Section 498-A does not fall in Chapter XX IPC.
It falls in Chapter XX-A. Section 198-A which
we have quoted hereinabove, permits a court to
take cognizance of offence punishable under
Section 498-A upon a police report of facts
which constitute offence. It must be borne in
mind that all these provisions relate to
cognizance of the offence by the court.
16. "Complaint" is defined under Section 2(d) of
the Code. The definition reads as under:
"2.(d) 'complaint' means any
allegation made orally or in writing
to a Magistrate, with a view to his
taking action under this Code, that
some person, whether known or
unknown, has committed an offence,
but does not include a police report.
Explanation.--A report made
by a police officer in a case which
discloses, after investigation, the
commission of a non-cognizable
offence shall be deemed to be a
complaint; and the police officer by
whom such report is made shall be
deemed to be the complainant;"
(emphasis supplied)
Explanation to Section 2(d) makes it clear that a
report made by a police officer after investigation
of a non-cognizable offence is to be treated as a
complaint and the officer by whom such a report
is made is to be deemed to be the complainant.
17. The above provisions lead us to conclude that
if a complaint contains allegations about
commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC
which is a cognizable offence, apart from
allegations about the commission of offence
under Section 494 IPC, the court can take
cognizance thereof even on a police report.
18. Reliance placed by the High Court on its
earlier judgment in Babubhai Madhavlal Patel v.
State of Gujarat,(1969) 1 Cri LJ 567 (Guj) is
misplaced. In that case, the High Court was
dealing with all the offences falling under
Chapter XX IPC. Initially, the accused were
charged under Section 417 read with Section 114
IPC. That charge was given a go-by and a fresh
charge in respect of Sections 493 to 496 IPC was
framed. These offences fall in Chapter XX IPC.
Therefore, the High Court held that cognizance
thereof can be taken by the Magistrate only on
the basis of complaint filed under Section
190(1)(a) of the Code by an aggrieved person.
That judgment cannot be applied to the present
case. Facts of that case were different and there
the High Court was dealing with cognizance of
the offences falling under Chapter XX by the
Magistrate.
19. The upshot of the above discussion is that no
fetters can be put on the police preventing them
from investigating the complaint which alleges
offence under Section 498-A IPC and also
offence under Section 494 IPC. In the
circumstances, the appeal must succeed. The
impugned order is set aside. Obviously,
therefore, the direction to delete Section 494 IPC
is set aside. The police shall investigate the
complaint in accordance with law."
10. Thus it is clear that when Police is investigating multiple offences,
out of which one is cognizable and another is non-cognizable, then no
fetters can be put to the Police preventing them from investigating non-
cognizable offence also.
11. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
12. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
S.M.
