MADHAV RAO SCINDIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern all the four cases mentioned above. The undisputed I facts of the case are that all the aforesaid four cases t have arisen as a result of a criminal complaint filed by one Smt. Chitralekha, daughter of Sardar Angre, on 11/10/1983 in the Court of Special Judge, Gwalior against Madhav Rao Scindia and 14 others. The learned Judge, after recording the statements of five witnesses passed an order for g issuance of bailable warrants for Rs. 500/- against P each of the accused persons, on 20/11/1985. Aggrieved by the said order the accused persons filed a Criminal Revision No. 185/85 before this Court. An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been filed by the petitioner namely Madhav Rao Scindia for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 145/85, pending in the Court of Shri Chandrika Prasad, Special Judge, Gwalior. Later on, in S.T. No. 86 of 1986 certain properties which were alleged to be properties of theft, in connection with Crime No. 135/82 of Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior were directed to be handed over to Scindia Museum vide order dated 24/1/1991 against which a Criminal Appeal (M.M.) No. 187/92, as mentioned above, has been filed by the appellant Shrimati Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia (hereinafter to be called as Rajmata). The case went on, but later on, an application for withdrawal of the case (ST No. 86/86) was moved by the State Government and the learned Judge passed all order granting permission for withdrawal from the prosecution. This order dated 24/1/1991 has been challenged by the petitioner Mahendra Pratap Singh and is the subject-matter of decision in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1991.

(2.) For a proper understanding of the case it would be proper to give the history of the criminal complaint filed by Smt. Chitralekha which has given rise to the present four petitions. One Smt. Chitralekha, daughter of Sardar Angre filed a criminal complaint under Sections 395, 397, 429, 452, 147, 148, 149,201 and 120B of the I.P.C. and under Sections 11 and 13 of the Dakaity Aur Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam 1981 alleging that there is a bunglow known as Hiranvan Kothi within the compound of Jai Vilas Palace, Gwalior. It may be pointed out here that accused No. 1 Madhav Rao Scindia is the present Maharaja of Gwalior. He is the only son of the late Shrimant Jiwaji Rao Scindia who was the Maharaja of Gwalior. Smt. Chitralekha, the complainant alleged that her father Sardar Angre is the private secretary of Rajmata who is the mother of accused No. 1, Madhav Rao Scindia. It is further alleged that in the year. 1973 Rajmata gave the said Hiravan Kothi to her father Sardar Angre in the knowledge of Madhav Rao Scindia, for residence. Since then her father Sardar Angre and his family members have been residing in the said Kothi. The said building was handed over to Sardar Angre orally by Rajmata. Not only this, but in order to regularize the said oral transfer a rent note was executed on 4/9/1979 in the name of the complainant. The accused persons did not like this transfer of possession of the said building to the complainant and her father. The complainant, her father and other family members were residing in the said Kothi on the date of occurrence. On 13.8.1983 in between 5-6 p.m. the accused persons No. 2 to 16 alongwith others in order to forcibly take possession of the said Hiranvan Kothi forced their entry in the said Kothi and drove the inmates out of the premises at the point of gun. The complainant had kept 5 dogs also for the safety of the building. On her return back the complainant found that only two dogs were present. The rest three, had been killed or taken away. It was further alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 (Madhav Rao Scindia) wanted to take forcible possession of the Kothi. Besides, the articles of the complainant, several precious articles of the museum were also kept therein which the accused No. 1 wanted to take in his possession. Madhav Rao Scindia wanted to dispossess Sardar Angre and his family members any how from the premises. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance of Madhav Rao Scindia wanted to take forcible possession over the Kothi and the antioues. For this act he had directed accused Nos. 2 and 3 to adopt any means to dispossess. On 11/8/1983 Rajmata proceeded for England. Shri Angre, her private secretary also proceeded for England on 12/8/1983. The family members of Shri Angre and the complainant also left for Delhi to see off Rajmata and Shri Angre. Only domestic servants were present at the house. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 is a member of ruling Congress Party and is also Member of Parliament on Congress ticket and he is in a position to influence the Government and its decision. The complainant received a telephonic message at Delhi on 13/8/1983. She proceeded by Air for Gwalior and reached Gwalior on 15th. A report was lodged at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior also. The name of the accused persons were disclosed, to the police but they did not take any action. The complainant and Smt. Sushma Devi Singh who was the Administrator of Scindia Museum sent telegrams to the M.P. Government intimating them, the criminal activities committed in the palace.

(3.) On the aforesaid ground and set of facts disclosed therein, the criminal complaint was filed against the accused persons. As stated earlier, the Special Judge, before whom the complaint was filed, recorded the statements of Chitralekha, the complainant, (2) Anjirabai w/o Shivaji Rao, (3) Jang Bahadur Singh sb Pancham Singh, (4) Ramesh Pathariya s/o Devilal Pathariya; and (5) Ganpathsingh s/o Prithvi Singh and (6) Narayan Krishna Shejwalkar sb Sri Krishna, Rao Shejwalkar. He directed that bailable warrants be issued against the accused persons. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20/11/1985 the accused persons filed the petition i.e. Criminal Revision No. 185/85. Besides this, a Misc. Criminal Case No. 1862/85 has also been filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pending in this Court, for ouashing the original Criminal (Special) Case No. 145/185 and subsequent proceedings.