MUKESH SINGH SENGER Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Itarsi, District-Hoshangabad in S.T.No.05/2011 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioner/applicant under Section 395 (2 counts) and 120-B (2 Counts) of the IPC.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Om Prakash was driver of the truck bearing registration No.M.P.-09-HF-3738 and when he was returning back to Sarni along with his cleaner Sonu. On the way, a Scorpio bearing registration No.M.P.-09-CA- 8788 came on the spot and some persons came out from that Scorpio and stopped the truck, claiming themselves as Police Officials and committed robbery of Rs.22,000/- and documents of the truck. Those persons also took away the truck. Thereafter, the complainant-Om Prakash lodged a report at Police Station-Pathrauta. On the basis of FIR against these unknown persons, a case was registered by the police. The police arrested one Prem Kumar and he gave memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act under the police custody and other persons, namely, Ali, Sonu, Suresh and Banti were implicated as co-accused. The truck was seized at Shyam Petrol Pump. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded by the police and after the investigation, charge- sheet has been filed against the accused-Prem Kumar. At that time, Other accused persons were absconding. The petitioner/applicant was arrested on 21.12.2010. The learned trial Court, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the accused-Prem Kumar from all the charges. After that, the police filed charge-sheet against the present applicant/petitioner. The learned trial Judge framed the charges against the present applicant/petitioner under Section 395 (2 counts) and 120- B (2 counts) of the IPC.

(3.) According to the petitioner/applicant the order of learned lower Court for framing the charges against the applicant/petitioner is bad in law. The learned trial Court committed grave error in framing the charges because there is no evidence on record to indicate that the applicant/petitioner participated in the above-said crime directly or indirectly. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the sole evidence of one accused-Prem Kumar, but the learned trial judge, after examining all the witnesses of the prosecution, acquitted the accused- Prem Kumar from all the charges. Therefore, no case is made out against the petitioner/applicant. Hence, there is no evidence on record to indicate that any clinching evidence is available to connect the petitioner/applicant with the aforesaid crime. So, if the proceeding of the trial is permitted then it would be only misuse of procedure and wastage of valuable time of the Court below. He prays for setting aside the impugned order and discharge the petitioner/applicant.