Sitaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Sitaram vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 23, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1089981

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/1089981
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 23, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sitaram

Advocate Shri. R.L.Ariha

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....the said crime. learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no name of the applicant in the fir lodged on 11.10.2010 and thereafter, the complainant had lodged a second fir and name of the applicant was introduced. the crime registered against the applicant in the second fir could not be registered and therefore, it is prayed that the second fir lodged by the complainant (annexure-p/2) may be quashed. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if a case is registered for the particular offence against some of the accused persons then, the second fir cannot be treated as an fir but it can be treated as statement under section 161 of cr.p.c.and therefore, if the complainant says something in the fir and says something different in the statement under section 161 of cr.p.c.then, it is for the trial court to assess as to whether she is telling a truth in the statement under section 161 of cr.p.c.or not. at present, it cannot be said that her statement in annexure-p/2 is not correct. by the alleged second fir, which was treated under section 161 of cr.p.c., it cannot be said that name of the applicant was illegally introduced in the case. it would be a matter of fact that he was involved in the crime or not. there is no basis by which any interference can be done by this court by invoking the inherent powers under section 482 of cr.p.c.on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the petition under section 482 of cr.p.c.filed by the applicant sitaram cannot be accepted and hence, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage. copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information. (n.k.gupta) judge pnkj

Full Judgment

M.Cr.C.No.10977/2013 23.09.2013 Shri R.L.Ariha, counsel for the applicant.

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

Heard on admission.

The applicant has moved the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.144/2012 at Police Station, Shahpur and a Criminal Case No.7/13 pending before the J.M.F.C.(Shri Satish Basunia) Mauganj, District Rewa.

The prosecution's case, in short is that, the complainant Smt.

Gajaratiya had lodged an FIR on 11.10.2010 about an incident by which a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 & 506/34 of IPC against four persons namely Chintamani, Luvkush, Antav and Dinesh Kushwaha.

Thereafter, the complainant gave a written report (Annexure-P/2) to the S.H.O.Shahpur, by which name of some accused persons were added and therefore, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant for the said crime.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no name of the applicant in the FIR lodged on 11.10.2010 and thereafter, the complainant had lodged a second FIR and name of the applicant was introduced.

The crime registered against the applicant in the second FIR could not be registered and therefore, it is prayed that the second FIR lodged by the complainant (Annexure-P/2) may be quashed.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, if a case is registered for the particular offence against some of the accused persons then, the second FIR cannot be treated as an FIR but it can be treated as statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.and therefore, if the complainant says something in the FIR and says something different in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.then, it is for the trial Court to assess as to whether she is telling a truth in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.or not.

At present, it cannot be said that her statement in Annexure-P/2 is not correct.

By the alleged second FIR, which was treated under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that name of the applicant was illegally introduced in the case.

It would be a matter of fact that he was involved in the crime or not.

There is no basis by which any interference can be done by this Court by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.filed by the applicant Sitaram cannot be accepted and hence, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

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