Darshan Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Darshan Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 02, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1050020

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1050020
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jan 02, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Darshan Singh

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the copy of charge sheet and other documents, it appears that it is alleged by the complainant against the applicant that he shouted and gave a threat to the complainant. there is no allegation of the complainant that the applicant used any criminal force upon him or assaulted him, therefore no offence under section 353 of ipc is made out against the applicant. the learned court below has committed an error in framing the charge under section 353 of ipc. the revisioner has no grievance against the charges of offence under sections 294 and 506 (part-ii) of ipc, and therefore it is not necessary to consider those charges. an attention of the trial court is also invited to the fact that offence under section 186 of ipc may be made out, but no court can take cognizance of that offence unless a complaint is filed before the court below. therefore, in place of offence under section 353 of ipc, charge under section 186 of ipc cannot be framed unless a complaint is filed within the limitation. on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 21.9.2012 is hereby partly set aside. the charge framed under section 353 of ipc is hereby quashed. the trial court shall proceed with the trial with the remaining charges. a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. (n.k.gupta) judge ansari

Full Judgment

Criminal Revision No.2034/2012 02.01.2013 Shri Manish Datt, Sr.Advocate with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the JMFC Gairatganj District Raisen in RT No.468/2011 by which the charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 353, 294, 506 (Part-II) of IPC are appended against the present applicant.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the copy of charge sheet and other documents, it appears that it is alleged by the complainant against the applicant that he shouted and gave a threat to the complainant.

There is no allegation of the complainant that the applicant used any criminal force upon him or assaulted him, therefore no offence under Section 353 of IPC is made out against the applicant.

The learned court below has committed an error in framing the charge under Section 353 of IPC.

The revisioner has no grievance against the charges of offence under Sections 294 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC, and therefore it is not necessary to consider those charges.

An attention of the trial Court is also invited to the fact that offence under Section 186 of IPC may be made out, but no Court can take cognizance of that offence unless a complaint is filed before the court below.

Therefore, in place of offence under Section 353 of IPC, charge under Section 186 of IPC cannot be framed unless a complaint is filed within the limitation.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 21.9.2012 is hereby partly set aside.

The charge framed under Section 353 of IPC is hereby quashed.

The trial Court shall proceed with the trial with the remaining charges.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Darshan Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education