MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-accused has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.10.2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Astha, District Sehore, in Sessions Trial No.192/2010 whereby application moved by a private person under section 319 of Cr.P.C. was allowed and arrest warrant is issued against the applicant.

(2.) The brief facts of the case in short are that in the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Astha, District Sehore, Sessions Trial No. 192/2010 is pending against seven accused persons for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 325 of I.P.C. The story of the prosecution is that on 29.5.2010 at about 3.30. PM when victim Mahendra Singh was sitting in his own house, present applicant Mangilal along with other co-accused persons, against whom the aforesaid sessions trial is pending, came there and assaulted him by iron rod and lathi. It is further alleged that when brother of victim Gulab Singh came there to save brother Mahendra Singh, accused persons also assaulted him. The matter was reported to the police and the injured was taken to the hospital for medical checkup. The police station Siddhiqgunj registered the offence vide Crime No.77/2010 against the applicant and other co-accused persons; but after investigation charge-sheet was filed against co-accused persons except the applicant. Thereafter, on the basis of evidence came on record during the trial and looking to the material submitted by the prosecution along with the charge-sheet, the learned lower court below passed the impugned order on the application submitted by the co-accused under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The court below directed that the applicant be arrayed as accused in the case and be summoned by non-bailable warrant. Against the impugned order, this revision has been filed on the ground that impugned order is contrary to law and unsustainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during investigation the police did not find any evidence against the applicant. It was found that at the time of incident he was on his duty as Govt. servant and this fact had been enquired by the S.D.M. and reported to the police. On the basis of the report police exonerated him from the case and no charge-sheet was filed against him. The applicant has been implicated subsequently due to animosity and in this regard application has been moved by the private person and not by the victim or the prosecution, which is not maintainable. Apart from it, no opportunity of hearing before disposal of this application has been given to the applicant-accused. Further, learned lower court has committed gross error of law in issuing arrest warrant instead of issuing summons. The impugned order is against the settled principles of law and passed arbitrarily, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.