LAWS(MPH)-2008-2-58

SOVARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

Decided On February 01, 2008
SOVARAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the applicants under sections 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arising out of the order dated 17-11-2006, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Morena in criminal Revision No. 40 of 2006, by which the Revisional Court directed the learned trial Court to decide the application of the prosecution under section 216 of Criminal Procedure Code, dated 22-8-2005.

(2.) THE main grievances of the applicants are that the impugned order passed by Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law because the same was filed against an interlocutory order. Therefore, the Court below was not having jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by learned trial Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction.

(3.) FACT of the case, in brief, is that on the basis of the report lodged by the applicant No. 2 at the police station Joura bearing Crime No. 355/97, under sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code was registered. Subsequently, the matter was investigated by the CID. On the basis of CID report, the offence under sections 304-A, 201, 177, 182, 211 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicants. The trial Court framed the charges under sections 304-A, 201, 211 of Indian Penal Code and fixed the case for prosecution evidence. The prosecution filed an application under section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure and averred that, the police has filed the challan under section 304-A, 201, 177, 182, 211 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and charges under sections 304-A, 201, 211 have been framed. It was further alleged that, the accused persons have lodged a false report in the police station on 15-10-1997 and gave false information to a public servant thereby earlier a false case was registered against the accused persons and on the basis of the CID investigation, they have been found innocent whereas as a matter of fact, it was prayed that charges under sections 194, 120 (B), 177 and 182 of Indian Penal Code be further framed against the accused persons.