Madhya Pradesh High Court
Himanshu Agrawal vs Deependra Rajawat Upnikshak on 23 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9141
1 M.Cr.C. No.50340 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50340 of 2024
HIMANSHU AGRAWAL
Versus
DEEPENDRA RAJAWAT UPNIKSHAK AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria and Shri Aditya Pratap Singh- Advocates for
applicant.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
2023, has been filed against order dated 08.11.2024 passed by XIX Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.341/2024 as well as
order dated 23.09.2024 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in an unregistered Criminal
Case, by which the complaint filed by applicant has been dismissed under
Section 203 of Cr.P.C.
2. It is the case of applicant that on 31.12.2023 applicant along with his
fiancee, friend, cousin brothers as well as cousin sisters had gone to Molecule
Restaurant to celebrate New Year. It is alleged that at about 12 in the night
respondents who are police personnel came there and started raising dispute
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9141
with regard to table. Applicant as well as his fiancee, friend, cousin brothers
and cousin sisters replied that they are having dinner and they would vacate the
table within five to ten minutes. However, respondents started misbehaving
with them and started abusing them filthily in the name of mother and sister.
When applicant objected to it, then he was assaulted by fist and blows. When
applicant and his colleagues tried to run away from the restaurant, then they
were surrounded by respondents and they were not allowed by them to go out
of the restaurant and they continued to beat them for a considerably long time.
As a result, applicant sustained injuries on various parts of body. When
applicant and his colleagues went to Police Station Padav to lodge FIR, then
respondents also reached there. When applicant expressed his intention to take
legal action against respondents, then respondents caught hold of applicant and
initiated proceeding under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. and he was detained in the
lock-up. At that time, applicant came to know that respondents have registered
an offence under Section 353 of IPC against him. Later on, applicant was got
released by his family members. He went to District Hospital, Morar, and got
himself treated on 03.01.2024. Thereafter, applicant approached various
authorities in order to initiate legal action against respondents but neither the
FIR was lodged nor any acknowledgment of written complaint was given.
Since no action was taken therefore he sent a complaint by registered post to
the Superintendent of Police, District Gwalior on 10.01.2024. In spite of that no
action was taken and accordingly complaint was filed under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C.
3. The Trial Magistrate, by order dated 10.02.2024 kept the question of
sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. open and after recording the statements of
witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. called the report from police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9141
and after considering the documents, dismissed the complaint under Section
203 of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, applicant preferred a revision
which too has been dismissed.
4. Challenging the orders passed by the courts below, it is submitted by
counsel for applicant that the courts below failed to see that applicant had
suffered multiple injuries which is evident from the medical report of applicant.
It is further submitted that the Trial Magistrate should not have called the report
from police and should have considered the case only on the basis of evidence
led by applicant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.
5. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
6. Section 202 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to call for enquiry
report from the Police. Thus, if Magistrate has called for report from the Police,
then it cannot be said that the said act of Magistrate was contrary to law.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Vs. Gulwant Singh
& Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 213 has held that scope of interference
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise
all the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process
should be issued or not but the enquiry at that stage does not partake the
character of full dress trial.
8. The undisputed facts are that applicant along with his fiancee and others
was sitting in the restaurant in the midnight of 31.12.2023 and at that time
respondents who are police personnel posted at Police Station Padav, District
Gwalior within whose territorial jurisdiction the said restaurant is situated, went
to the restaurant and objected to the act of taking dinner in the wee hours of
night. It is the case of applicant that when it was replied by applicant and his
colleagues that they would leave the restaurant within five to ten minutes after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9141
having their dinner, then they were abused filthily in the name of mother and
sister and applicant was also beaten. It is the case of applicant himself that an
offence under Section 353 of IPC has been registered against him. In view of
the admitted fact that applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 353 of
IPC, the Magistrate did not commit any mistake by calling the report from the
Police. The Police had submitted the report along with Roznamcha Sanha to the
effect that the respondents who were on patrolling duty went to Molecule
Restaurant. Then the Manager of the said restaurant was directed to close down
the restaurant as it was already 12:30 am and permission to open the restaurant
was already over. At that time, one boy in an inebriated condition started
creating ruckus. Since applicant was suspected to be in an inebriated condition,
therefore, he was sent for medical examination and alcoholic breath was found.
Therefore, it is clear that Police had found that applicant was in an inebriated
condition. According to the complaint, applicant was beaten by fist and blows.
However, it appears that applicant has got himself treated as an outdoor patient
in District Hospital, Morar, District Gwalior and some medicines were
prescribed to him. In that prescription, neither the injuries are mentioned nor
the cause and duration of injuries is mentioned. Applicant has filed copy of
another document as Annexure P-11 which according to him was supplied to
him under RTI. Record of the courts below has been received. Record of Trial
Magistrate contains prescription which has been filed by applicant as Annexure
P-6. From the record of Trial Magistrate, it appears that the complaint was
earlier dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 03.05.2024. Thereafter, by
order dated 14.08.2024, the Revisional Court remanded the matter back. It
appears that thereafter on 09.09.2024 applicant filed a photocopy of history
sheet which has been filed by applicant as Annexure P-11 along with this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9141
application. Even if, the history sheet which has been filed as Annexure P-11 is
considered, then it is clear that according to the doctor injuries were caused by
hard and blunt object and the age of injuries was sometime between 00 to 68
hours. According the history sheet applicant had suffered three injuries i.e. (i)
contusion 7cm x 10cm blue on left buttock; (ii) contusion 4cm x 5cm in left
arm; and (iii) Severe pain in back. These injuries cannot be caused by fist and
blows. It is not the case of applicant that he was assaulted by any lathi or any
weapon but it is his specific case that he was beaten by fist and blows.
Therefore, it is clear that history-sheet which has been filed by applicant as
Annexure P-11 does not corroborate the allegations made by applicant. Both
the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact.
9. Although counsel for applicant has relied upon judgment passed by
Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan And
Another reported in (2004) 4 SCC 432, according to which in spite of final
report submitted by Police that complaint is false, still the Magistrate is
empowered to take cognizance if material on record makes out a case for the
said purpose but this Court has already considered the submissions as well as
medical report relied upon by applicant and has come to the conclusion that
medical report relied upon by applicant does not corroborate the allegations
made by applicant in the complaint as well as in his statement under Section
200 of Cr.P.C.
10. If the report submitted by Police as well as complaint made by applicant
is considered, then it is clear that complainant was sitting in the hotel even after
permission had come to an end and when Police party asked the manager of the
hotel to close down the restaurant, then it appears that applicant misbehaved
with the police party in an inebriated condition. Allegation that applicant and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9141
his colleagues were in the hotel even after 00:00 are borne out from the
complaint itself. So far as the assault by the Police party is concerned, this
Court has already held that medical report relied upon by applicant does not
corroborate with the allegations made by him, as according to applicant he was
assaulted by fist and blows whereas the injuries were found on 03.01.2024
cannot be caused by fist and blows.
11. Accordingly, both the courts below have given concurrent finding that
applicant has miserably failed in making out prima facie offence against
respondents. Furthermore, allegations made in the complaint clearly make out
the case where sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. would be required.
12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of considered opinion that courts below did not commit any mistake by
rejecting the application under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.
13. Ex. consequenti, application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
