SANJEEV RAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On earlier occasion this Court vide order dtd. 9/1/2024 granted time to the applicants to place on record the order of framing charges. In compliance of the said order learned counsel for the applicants has filed I.A. No.3642 of 2024, an application for taking documents on record. Along with the application the order of framing charges has been filed as Annexure IA/1.

(2.) The case of the applicants is that the respondent No.2/complainant lodged an FIR dtd. 22/3/2016 alleging therein that on 12/3/2016 the applicants have used filthy language, abused and manhandled the complainant in Tahsil Office premises and threatened her of dire consequence. The dispute arose because of a land deal Area measuring 2.9 Acres and the consideration for which the buyer has to pay to the complainant. The applicant No.1 being a lawyer, who got the sale-deed executed thus, he has to get the balance amount paid. It is further alleged that the applicants abused the complainant by her caste and on the next day i.e. on 13/3/2016 the applicants entered the house of the complainant, assaulted her husband with hands and fists.

(3.) It is argued that the entire case is an afterthought and as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the applicants on 12/3/2016 bearing Crime No.87 of 2016 at Police Station Gairatganj, District Raisen. It is pointed out that the complainant herself has lodged an NCR under Sec. 155 of the Cr.P.C. on the same day being NCR No.81 f 2016. After going through the NCR, it is clear that the FIR dtd. 22/3/2016 is an afterthought and no such incident has taken place on 12/3/2016. Complainant being the Panch of the Gram Panchayat Saidpur, Tahsil Gairatganj and since the decision is being taken in Gram Sabha on 15/4/2015 to remove the husband of the complainant from the employment of Panchayat at the instance of Smt. Sumitra Rai, the complaint was made. The applicant No.1 is neither a party to the sale-deed nor he has any stake in the said transaction. On the contrary, he has merely got the sale-deed executed being a part of his profession as an advocate. The consideration of the sale-deed has already been paid in furtherance to the sale-deed dtd. 23/1/2013 executed by husband of complainant namely Roop Singh in favour of the purchaser Jagmohan Pal. Furthermore, they have accorded their consent for mutation of the name of purchaser Jagmohan Pal in the revenue records after one month from the date of the execution of the sale-deed.