LAWS(MPH)-2002-3-53

G P SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On March 20, 2002
G.P.SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order passed in this M. Cr. C. shall also govern the disposal of Cr. Rev. No. 361/97 and Cri. Rev. No. 631/98 the petition filed under S. 482, Cr. P.C. by the applicant-Shri G. P. Sharma S.I., PS Shahjahanbad, Bhopal against the order dt. 3-7-1995 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh in Cr. Rev. No. 47/95 arising out of order dt. 31-10-1994 passed by JMFC, Narsinghgarh in Criminal Case No. 417/91 and order dt. 13-3-1995 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 114/95 challenging the order of discharge dt. 31-10-1994 for the offence under S. 304-A, IPC and issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Ss. 218, 219, 220, 217, 466, 468, 469, 211, 193, IPC on the ground that the applicant had manipulated the FIR and record of investigation by writing number of vehicle in ante-date and time for prosecution of the accused. Thereafter the JMFC registered Misc. Cr. Case No. 114/95 and issued show cause notice. The applicant appeared and submitted his reply thereafter the trial Court took cognizance under S. 190, Cr. P.C. for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and ordered to register the case. Thereafter non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner vide order dt. 13-3-1995, against this order i.e. order dt. 13-3-1995 the revision was filed and the same has been dismissed by the revisional Court, hence this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) On 27-8-1997, this Court after hearing counsel for the applicant-Shri Khan and Shri Desai, Dy. AG for State for registration of revision by exercising suo motu power against the order dt. 13-10-1994 passed by JMFC in Criminal Case No. 417/91 whereby the Magistrate has discharged the accused of the charge under S. 304-A, I.P.C. In pursuance thereof office has registered Cr. Rev. No. 361/97 and State has also filed Cr. Rev. No. 631/98 assailing the order of discharge passed by trial Court and order for prosecution of Investigating Officer Shri G. P. Sharma.

(3.) The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narainghgarh vide order dt. 30-10-1994 discharged the non-applicant No. 1-Sharif for whom the counsel Shri Gajankush is appearing, from the charge punishable under S. 304-A, I.P.C. on the ground that in the FIR vehicle No. UAV 9315 was written, later on after lodging FIR because ink of this number is different than the ink of FIR, trial Court was also of the opinion that crime No., section of offence, date of incident and time are written in Hindi figures whereas the vehicle no. is mentioned in International figures i.e. UAV 9315. The trial Court has perused the case diary at the stage of framing of charge and considered the material which was available in the case-diary. According to the trial Court, the case diary was revealing the fact that the number of vehicle was not known at the time of lodging of FIR and the same has been written afterwards just to make out case against any vehicle, at the time of writing FIR the place where vehicle No. was mentioned left blank and only because of this reason in the FIR vehicle No. was written and in the FIR attached with the case-diary at place A to A and B to B vehicle No. was not mentioned and this is the indicative of fact that upto that time vehicle No. was not known and later on after arresting the accused his vehicle No. was written but the Investigating Officer had forgotten to do this patch working in case diary. Court was also of the opinion that for seizure of the vehicle forged documents were prepared in the case diary page No. 40, the truck No. was previously mentioned DC, but thereafter overwriting has been done on it. On the basis of these manipulation and interpolation found by the trial Court in the case diary and FIR, the trial Court has discharged the accused on 31-1-1994. On this date the case was fixed for framing of charge. This Court is not able to understand as to why FIR was described as Ex.P/2 when the case was fixed on 31-10-1994 for framing of charge. The original FIR is also showing the marking of Ex. P/2(A) proved by the P.W. 5 on 7-2-1994 but in the record this Court is not able to lay hand on such statement. Apart from this, the question of proving FIR would not arise upto framing of charge. By order dt. 31-10-1994, the case was fixed for framing of charge and on that date the Court has discharged the accused after perusal and consideration of contents of case diary and charge-sheet. While discharging the accused the trial Court has also ordered for issuance of show cause to Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer why he should not be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Ss. 218, 218, 220, 217, 466, 468, 469, 211, 193, I.P.C. Thereafter in Criminal Case No. 114/95 by order dt. 13-3-1995 learned JMFC took cognizance against the applicant-Sharma Sub-Inspector for the offences punishable under Ss. 193, 211, 217, 220, 466, 468 and 469, I.P.C. and issued warrant of arrest against him. Against this order Revision No. 47/95 was filed by GP Sharma but the same has been dismissed by order dt. 3-7-1995.