PADMAKAR DHARMADHIKARI Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC challenging the order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the Sesions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2004 whereby the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Itarsi, on 27.3.2004, framing the charges against the applicant under section 325 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 1102 of 2000 has been confirmed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant Sandeep Khandelwal lodged a report with the Police Itarsi that on 10.11.2000, while he was sitting in his building material shop, applicant, who happened to be the landlord of his shop, came there and asked him to vacate the shop. On his protest and saying that he would vacate the shop when he will get another shop, the applicant uttered obscene words and assaulted him. He assaulted him by an iron pipe, but the blow was warded off by his employee Mukesh Raikwar. The blow landed on the hand of Mukesh as a result of which he suffered injury on his hand. On medical examination Mukesh Raikwar was found to have suffered three injuries on his body. On x-ray examination lower end of ulna bone was found fractured. On the aforesaid report, police registered the case under sections 341, 323 & 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that, in fact, the applicant (accused) was in possession of the shop where the incident is said to have occurred and it was the complainant who had tried to dispossess him. He submitted that complainant's wife Jyoti Khandelwal had filed a suit for injunction against the applicant, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Itarsi, on 22.11.2003, holding that the complainant was not in possession of the shop and that on 10.11.2000 applicant had not tried to dispossess the complainant from the shop. He submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the civil Court, the trial Court ought not to have framed the charges against the applicant as is indicated that the first information report lodged by the complainant was false. He submitted that the time of framing the charges, the Courts below ought to have considered that criminal case and civil proceedings involved the same cause of action therefore the judgment of civil Court with respect to the aforesaid findings was relevant while considering the framing of . charge. He submitted that in view of the finding of the civil Court the charges framed by the Magistrate deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the case of K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police and another reported in 2003 (1) MPLJ 1, wherein the apex Court observed that if the criminal case and civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of the civil Court would be relevant if conditions of any of the sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act are satisfied.