Rajesh & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Both these cases relate to the same Crime No. 148/2015.

Hence, they are being dealt with by this common order. The criminal revision No. 2458/2017 has been filed by the applicants against the impugned

order dated 05.08.2017 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurai in Session Trial No. 3900389/20147 whereby the trial Court has framed

charges under Section 307/149, 341, 323 and in alternate Section 323/149, 506-II of the IPC against applicant No. 2/Anil and applicant No. 3/Brijesh

whereas charges under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 307 of IPC have been framed against applicant No. 1/Rajesh. M.Cr.C. No.

8757/2017 has been filed by applicant/Ravindra for quashing of FIR registered at Police Station Malthon District Sagar (MP) under Section 307, 364,

341, 323, 294 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 16.08.2015 at about 1:00 pm near the Government Hospital, Main Road, Barodia, complainant Balram Singh

along with Raghavendra were going to drink tea. Suddenly all the accused persons (applicants herein) came there in one qualis and two bolero jeeps.

They restrained the complainant and Raghavendra. Applicant Rajesh abused the complainant and Raghavendra for stealing liquor from his shop. They

were trying to take the complainant with them and started assaulting Balram with kick and fist. Other eye-witnesses were present there. Hence, the

applicant Rajesh threatened them for their life and fled away along with other co-accused. On the written complaint filed by Balram Singh on

16.08.2015 at about 2:00 pm at police outpost Barodia, FIR was registered against all the accused persons under Section 341, 323, 294 and 506/34 of

IPC. Later on police added Section 307 and 364 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. After

committal of the case, learned trial Court framed charges as mentioned above.

Applicant Ravindra Rai filed M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR on the grounds that, in the FIR the name was mentioned as

Ravindra Munim in fact his name is Ravindra Rai. He has no enimity with the complainant. He has made various complaint against the complainant

regarding illegal selling of liquor in the local area to the high authorities, therefore, false allegations were made by the complainant against him. One

Sanjeev also complained against Raghuvir and Suraj Kushwah. They made illegal demand of money from him which was not fulfilled by the applicant

Ravindra. Hence, the complainant falsely implicated him.

The applicants further contended that in the medical report, no grievous injuries have been found on the complainant, therefore, no case is made out

against the applicant under Section 307 of IPC. Co-accused Rajesh claimed that charges have been framed against him without any evidence. All the

witnesses are interested witnesses. Other prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and Anil and Brijesh were not named in the

FIR. Hence, applicants prayed to set aside all the charges levelled against them.

Learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the record.

It is true that FIR in crime No. 148/2015 has been lodged by the complainant on the date of incident within two hours of the incident at Police

Station Malthon against the applicant Rajesh and other accused persons. In the FIR there is no allegation of offence punishable under Section 307 of

IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Earlier FIR was registered under Section 341, 323, 294 and 506/34 of IPC against the applicants. Hence,

such omissions are very material.

After some days, complainant Balram stated to the police that at the time of incident applicant Rajesh fired on him by country made Pistol but the

bullet touched his hair and therefore, he did not sustain any injury. Police registered his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In similar way, eye

witnesses Raghavendra and Gabba Thakur stated about the gunfire by applicant Rajesh. After considering the differences in their statements from the

FIR, by police their statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C were recorded and produced before the trial Court which shows clear improvements in the

prosecution story. Under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statements of Balram and Raghavendra and Bhaggi have been recorded on 25.08.2015. FIR has

been lodged on 16.08.2015. It clearly appears that after 9 days from lodging the FIR the complainant Balram and his witness prepared concocted

story.

Learned Government Advocate submits that police seized empty cartridge from the spot which supported their versions. But the FSL report shows

negative findings against the prosecution story.

In the FIR, it is mentioned that Ajay, Arvind and Ravindra with applicants Rajesh and some other 4-5 persons were involved in the crime.

Applicant Anil and Brijesh were identified as accused during the investigation. Hence, at this stage, they are not entitled to be discharge from all the

charges levelled against them.

Therefore, criminal revision No. 2458/2017 filed by applicant No. 1/Rajesh is partly allowed. Consequently, charges framed by the trial Court

under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act against applicant No. 1/Rajesh are hereby set aside. He is discharged

from the aforesaid charges. Therefore, all the applicants are liable to be tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

With regard to the M.Cr.C. No.8757/2017 filed by applicant Ravindra Rai, only difference in surname is not sufficient ground to set aside the

charges levelled against him. Further that, all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant/Ravindra Rai are mixed question of facts and

law and also matter of evidence, which can be properly adjudicated by the trial Court after recording of evidence. Hence, under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., FIR filed against applicant/Ravindra Rai is not liable to be quashed at this stage. Hence, the petition filed by Ravindra Rai is hereby

dismissed.