PATIRAM KAITHELE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 397, 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), assailing the order dated 30.7.2018, passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 762/2018, whereby closure report in connection with Crime No. 129/2017 registered by Police Station Bilaua, district Gwalior, has been accepted.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was lodged against the respondent No.2 at the Police Station Bilaua, District Gwalior, which was registered in Crime No. 129/2017 under Sections 353, 332, 186 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, mainly on the allegations that the petitioner is posted as a Line Helper at the Electricity Distribution Centre, Tekanpur. On 11.10.2017, as a member of vigilance team constituted for checking electricity theft he reached the house of consumer, namely, Smt. Rubi Rajawat W/o Anil Singh Rajawat (respondent No.2), where it was found that the electricity line of said house was damaged and electricity meter was showing low consumption in comparison to actual electricity load in the said house, therefore the electricity meter from the said house had been removed and was installed on an electricity poll situated in front of said house. As soon as the petitioner finished said work, the respondent No.2 reached there and started abusing and beaten the petitioner and threatened to deprive him from discharging his duty and terrorized to kill him. As the respondent No.2 is working in BSF, due to his undue influence the closure report has been filed before the Special Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior on the ground that as per the information gathered from the BSF Office, the respondent No.2/ accused was present on duty on the date of said incident. The petitioner had filed objection along with affidavit before the Special Judge. Despite, the Court below has passed the impugned order dated 30.7.2018 and accepted the closure report holding that on the date of incident the respondent No.2 was not present on the spot. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, malafide and contrary to the statutory provisions contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court below has overlooked the material fact that the respondent No.2/accused is employed and posted at the Office of BSF, Tekanpur district Gwalior and the BSF Office and respondent No.2's house are situated in the same vicinity and it cannot be denied that he could have arrived on spot soon after getting information of checking electricity connection by the vigilance team. The order passed is without application of mind, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The Court below has erred in law in overlooking the well-settled law that plea of alibi can only be considered after recording of evidence and the accused cannot be discharged on the ground of such defence. Hence, the order passed is not sustainable. The police authority has not discharged its duty fairly but has acted under the influence of respondent No.2.