Quashed

Mahadev Prasad Pandey v. Dhirendra Kumar Shukla and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Apr 2012CRMP/344/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court held that amending a 1994 complaint in 2007 to implicate the petitioner using the word 'alias' was without jurisdiction. The Court quashed the order amending and impleading the petitioner as accused because the complainant failed to include his name in the initial filing. Quality: thin.

What did the court decide?

The order amending the complaint in 1994 in year 2007 and impleading the petitioner as accused No.3 with the help of word alias is quashed.

Mahadev Prasad Pandey Vs Dhirendra Kumar… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

V Qm W 3a W m (GIT) Single Bench CrMP N03” /2011

¶2

¶3

:— Wmmmow.afrww%w wwn aim—mm, wm,m%€rm, mawmwn) m

¶4

wwwmoafrmw Wjxrwm46^aiww WW)331T$W,W®E) Waé=r1€rtr$m¢frmmam€r gamma ashaTFc’h—rragm, W,W®fr.) mww.mm,wwnm56 atf,aTFc‘h—rra:n1€namgaw% W,W®n) WWWW, wwm,m®m)

¶5

Wm427W—W,W . m, m'wm,w (6.11.)

¶6

Wwmmw‘mméw

¶7

¶8

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR} Cr. M.P.^No.344/2011

¶9

Mahadev^PrasadPandey Petitioner/ Accused

¶10

¶11

Dhirendra Kumar^Shukla Resgondents Anand Vardhan^Tripathi Pramod^Shukla 4 Rampher^Pathak 5 Constable^{No.427,namenot known} PETITION^{UNDERSECTION482OFTHECODEOFCRIMINAL} PROCEDURE,^1973.

¶12

(SB^{:Hon’bleMr.T.P.Sharma,J.)}

¶13

PresentMr. C.K.^{KeshawvanLAdvocatefor thepetitioner.} MI. C.R.^{Sahu,AdvocateforrespondentNo.1} Ms. Min’u^{Banerjee,AdvoeateforrespondentsNo.2to4.} Mr. Vivek^{Singhal,Advocateforrespondent No.5}

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Passed^{on12/04/2012)}

¶16

By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner^has prayed^{forquashmentoftheorder} by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in passed criminal^{caseNo.556/98newcriminalcaseNo.1197/2006whereby} has been amended in complaint as name of present petitioner accused.

¶17

Record of Trial^{CourtbearingnewcriminalcaseNo.} 1197/2006 pending^{beforeJudicialMagistrateFirstClass,Raipurperused.} As per^{record,complainthasbeenfiledon03.05.1994against05} persons,^{includingaccusedNo.3Narmada Mahany',aged42years} S/o not known, resident of Juna Bilaspur, Police Station City

Korwali, Bilaspur MR). Vide order dated 05.12.2007 application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 01, name of accused No. 03 and address is amended as “alias Mahadev Prasaa' Pandey S/o Jagannath, R/o Katiapam Juna Bilaspur, Police Siaiion Ciiy " Kotwali’ Bilaspur (CG). Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. CR. Sahu, Advocate for respondent No. l, Ms. Minn Banerjee, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4 and Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate for respondent No. 5 are heard.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint has been registered against respondent No. 03 along with other co-accused whose name and address was^“Narmada Maharaj, aged 42 years S/o not known, resident ofJuna Bilaspur, Police Station Ciiy Kotwali, Bilaspur MP.) " but after lapse of 13 years, suddenly, it has been amended and present petitioner has been arrayed as accused with the help of word^“alias”. It is clear from the complaint that Narmada Maharaj was accused No. 3, respondent No. 01 was not knowing the name of his father or his address but in the year 2007, name of present petitioner, his father’s name and his address has been amended which is not permissible under the law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. l opposed the petition and submits that petitioner was also known as Narmada Maharaj therefore, by amending the complaint, Court below or respondent No. l has not committed any illegality even otherwise in the year 2004, summon has been served upon present petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondents N0. 2 to 5 firmly opposed the petition.

¶25

As per original complaint dated 03.05. 1994, name of accused^No.03 was Narmada Maharaj, aged 42 years, S/o not known^resident of Juna Bilaspur, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur MP.)^butall of a sudden it was amended in the year 2007 as^{MahackvPrasad} Pandey S/o Jagannath, Katiapara, Juna Bilaspur, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur (CG), when respondent^{No.01washaving} knowledge about the address and name^of petitioner^then it was incumbent upon him to mention his name and address in the complaint on the date of filing^{of thecomplaint.Thisisnotthecase} where accused No. 3 was unknown and offence has not been registered against accused No. 3 but, subsequently, it came into notice of the complainant/respondent^No.1 therefore, he has filed fresh application for taking cognizance^against present petitioner.^In the entire complaint there is no^{whisperthatMahadevPrasadPandey} S/o Jagannath has committed same^offence in the year 1994. In absence of such allegation,^{amendingthecomplaintandimplicating} petitioner^{asaccusedwaswithout} jurisdiction.^{Consequently,order} amending and impleading^the petitioner^{asaccusedNo.3withthe}

¶26

help of word alias is hereby quashed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

T.P.^Sharma Judge

¶29

47/

Mahadev Prasad Pandey v. Dhirendra Kumar Shukla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Prasad Pandey v. Dhirendra Kumar Shukla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dukhu Ram Gupta Vs Jagdish Ram

Devnath Gupta and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surjadeep Singh and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girdharilal Vs Bhagwan Singh

Yogendra Sigh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs Chandan Majumdar and Ors.