Shyam Sundar Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1046395
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-06-2013
AppellantShyam Sundar Singh
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
crr no.1427/2012 criminal revision no.1427/2012 6.3.2013 shri a.k.soni, counsel for the applicant. shri p.c.gupta, panel lawyer for the state/ respondent no.1. heard on admission. the applicant has challenged the order dated 7.5.2012 passed by the learned sessions judge, jabalpur in criminal appeal no.73/2012, whereby the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned jmfc, jabalpur in criminal case no.8473/2011 by which an application under section 321 of the cr.p.c.filed by the prosecution was accepted. the facts of the case, relating to the present revision, in short, are that the applicant had lodged an fir against the respondents no.2 and 3 on 10.1.1997 that they abused him with obscene words and also threatened him. therefore, a case of offence punishable under sections 294, 506-b of ipc was registered. the learned jmfc, jabalpur has framed the charges of offence punishable under sections 294, 506-b of ipc. in criminal revision no.380/2001 vide order dated 21.6.2011, the single bench of this court has partly allowed the criminal revision filed by the respondents no.2 and 3 and the respondents no.2 and 3 were discharged from the charges of offence punishable under sections 294, crr no.1427/2012 506-b of ipc. since the case was old and there was no possibility of conviction in the case, therefore, according to the directions of the state government, the assistant public prosecutor moved an application under section 321 of the cr.p.c.when the case was listed in the lok adalat. the learned jmfc vide order dated 19.11.2011 in lok adalat, allowed the application under section 321 of the cr.p.c.and acquitted the respondents no.2 and 3. the appeal filed by the applicant/appellant before the sessions judge was also dismissed vide order dated 7.5.2012. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that according to the directions given by the state government, the assistant public prosecutor could withdraw the case under section 321 of the cr.p.c., if it is an old case and there is no possibility of any conviction in that case. it is true that the revision filed by the respondents no.2 and 3 was partly allowed. however, it is apparent that alleged threat was given in the year 1997 and thereafter, the complainant could not quote any instance that the respondents no.2 and 3 had tried to execute their threat and therefore the respondents no.2 and 3 crr no.1427/2012 could not be convicted for the offence punishable under section 506 (b) of ipc and therefore, there were no fair chances of success of the trial. under such circumstances, if the learned assistant public prosecutor has moved an application under section 321 of the cr.p.c.then, it cannot be said that it was against the public policy. the learned counsel for the applicant could not show any judgment passed by hon'ble the apex court to the point that the consent of the complainant is necessary for considering the application under section 321 of the cr.p.c.under such circumstances, if the learned jmfc has accepted the application under section 321 of the cr.p.c in absence of the complainant then, there is no illegality committed by the trial court. the learned sessions judge has discussed in detail about the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. it appears that the case was a proper case which could be withdrawn under section 321 of the cr.p.c.and the trial court has rightly passed an order of acquittal, after accepting the application under section 321 of the cr.p.c.no illegality or perversity is visible in the order passed by the learned jmfc and therefore, at present, the revision crr no.1427/2012 filed by the applicant cannot be accepted. consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage. copy of the order be sent to the trial court as well as the appellate court alongwith their records for information. (n.k.gupta) judge pushpendra
Judgment:

CRR No.1427/2012 Criminal Revision No.1427/2012 6.3.2013 Shri A.K.Soni, counsel for the applicant.

Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.1.

Heard on admission.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 7.5.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in criminal appeal No.73/2012, whereby the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur in criminal case No.8473/2011 by which an application under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.filed by the prosecution was accepted.

The facts of the case, relating to the present revision, in short, are that the applicant had lodged an FIR against the respondents No.2 and 3 on 10.1.1997 that they abused him with obscene words and also threatened him.

Therefore, a case of offence punishable under sections 294, 506-B of IPC was registered.

The learned JMFC, Jabalpur has framed the charges of offence punishable under sections 294, 506-B of IPC.

In criminal revision No.380/2001 vide order dated 21.6.2011, the single Bench of this Court has partly allowed the criminal revision filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 and the respondents No.2 and 3 were discharged from the charges of offence punishable under sections 294, CRR No.1427/2012 506-B of IPC.

Since the case was old and there was no possibility of conviction in the case, therefore, according to the directions of the State Government, the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.when the case was listed in the Lok Adalat.

The learned JMFC vide order dated 19.11.2011 in Lok Adalat, allowed the application under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.and acquitted the respondents No.2 and 3.

The appeal filed by the applicant/appellant before the Sessions Judge was also dismissed vide order dated 7.5.2012.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that according to the directions given by the State Government, the Assistant Public Prosecutor could withdraw the case under section 321 of the Cr.P.C., if it is an old case and there is no possibility of any conviction in that case.

It is true that the revision filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 was partly allowed.

However, it is apparent that alleged threat was given in the year 1997 and thereafter, the complainant could not quote any instance that the respondents No.2 and 3 had tried to execute their threat and therefore the respondents No.2 and 3 CRR No.1427/2012 could not be convicted for the offence punishable under section 506 (B) of IPC and therefore, there were no fair chances of success of the trial.

Under such circumstances, if the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has moved an application under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.then, it cannot be said that it was against the public policy.

The learned counsel for the applicant could not show any judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court to the point that the consent of the complainant is necessary for considering the application under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.Under such circumstances, if the learned JMFC has accepted the application under section 321 of the Cr.P.C in absence of the complainant then, there is no illegality committed by the trial Court.

The learned Sessions Judge has discussed in detail about the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicant.

It appears that the case was a proper case which could be withdrawn under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.and the trial Court has rightly passed an order of acquittal, after accepting the application under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.No illegality or perversity is visible in the order passed by the learned JMFC and therefore, at present, the revision CRR No.1427/2012 filed by the applicant cannot be accepted.

Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as the appellate Court alongwith their records for information.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra