MANGI LALA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Although both the petitions have been filed by different petitioners impugning the different orders, yet both are arising out of one case, hence, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) VIDE M. Cr. C. No. 4256/05 order dated 13th July, 2004 and vide M. Cr. C. No. 4400/ 05 order dated 30th August, 2005 passed by the JMFC, Mungawali in criminal case no. 111/04 have been impugned, by which cognizance under Sections 302 and 201 of ipc/302/34, 201/34 and 120b of IPC has been taken against the petitioners while applying the provisions of Section 190 of cr. P. C.

(3.) 3a. The factual matrix in brief, being necessary to be known, is that with regard to the death of Kallu @ Balkishan S/o babulal Jatav merg No. 1/03 was registered at police station, Bahadurpur, Distt. Guna. After conducting enquiry and coming to the conclusion that the mode of death is homicidal, fir crime No. 1/03 was registered against unknown persons under Section 302/201 of IPC at the same police station. After conducting investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 15th June, 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304/201 of IPC against only two petitioners viz. Mangilal @ Manga and Tulsiram. On 131h July, 2004 the learned Magistrate vide first impugned order, while observing that the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC appears to be made out on the basis of the charge-sheet papers, passed the impugned order against the aforementioned two petitioners. This order has been impugned firstly on the ground that upto that time, there was no document available on the record in support of this order. Countering the contention, Shri Mahore, the learned deputy Govt. Advocate, has submitted that on the basis of the statement of Harnam singh recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. , offence of murder has been made out. But, on perusal of the statement of Harnam singh recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. on 10th April, 2003, it does not appear that he is stating anything with regard to the offence of murder committed by these two petitioners. His statement is also based on the information given by these two petitioners. The relevant part of his statement goes as under: