VIJAY SEJWAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions i.e. Mcrc No.3142/2014 and Mcrc No,.3143/2014 are being decided by this common order because both the petitions have been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in two different Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal Revision No.160/2012 filed by petitioner Mahendra (petitioner in Mcrc 3143/2014 herein) and Criminal Revision No.01/2013 filed by petitioners Vijay Sejwar and others (petitioners in Mcrc 3142/2014 herein). By passing the common order impugned dated 28.03.2014 both the revision petitions were dismissed in confirmation with the order dated 24.12.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.279/2008 whereby the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant Smt Lalita Sejwar was allowed and the petitioners of both the petitions have been called as accused to face trial.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that on the basis of FIR made by complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Lalita Sejwar Crime No.692/07 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri against respondent (1) Jitendra, (2) Smt Dhannobai, (3) Shailendra, (4) Smt Ram Murti bai. Criminal Case No.279/2008 was registered. After framing charges, statement of complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Lalita Sejwar (PW-1) dated 31.03.2009 was recorded.

(3.) Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that on the evidence of complainant/respondent No.2 Lalita Sejwar initially application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Magistrate and on the same set of evidence now the application preferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and in such situation impugned order of the trial court so also of the revisional court were bad in law. Apart that only on the basis of some omnibus allegations during investigation it was found by the investigating agency that no offence is made out against the petitioners and therefore charge-sheet was not filed against them. In support of his contention, Shri Sharma, learned counsel, relied on Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti, 2010 1 SCC(Cri) 286, Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another Vs. Monica, 2010 1 SCC(Cri) 383, Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2010 3 SCC(Cri) 473, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao, 2009 3 SCC(Cri) 1123, Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 SCC(Cri) 1473, Sarabjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 2009 CrLJ 3978 and Brindaban Das & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, 2009 AIR(SC) 1248.