Dismissed

Ramesh Agrawal v. Mohan Lal Agrawal And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jan 2024ACQA/69/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that under Section 195 CrPC, no cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC could be taken without a complaint by the concerned public servant. Since no such complaint was filed and witnesses admitted lacking knowledge of the SDM's order, acquittal was correct.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh.

Ramesh Agrawal Vs Mohan Lal Agrawal And Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 69 of 2014

¶5

Ramesh Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Kumar Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o Ramniwas Talkies Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mohan Lal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Raghunath Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Ramniwas Talkies Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶9

Arvind Agrawal S/o Shri Mohanlal Agrawal Aged About 23 Years R/o Ramniwas Talkies Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶10

Rakesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Raghunath Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Ramniwas Talkies Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Kotwali, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Shri M.K. Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents/accused : None. For Respondent/State : Shri BP Banjare, Deputy GA.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶15

Judgment On Board

¶16

03/01/2024 :

¶17

This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (4) of the CrPC against the judgment dated 24^th July, 2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 2^nd Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.63/2013 whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge

¶18

¶19

under Section 188 of the IPC for disobedience of the orders passed by the SDM in Misc. Criminal Case No.13/2010 on 3.5.2010 & 18.1.2011.

¶20

Prosecution case is that the appellant/complainant has made a complaint before the SDM, Raigarh against the respondents/ accused stating that they had broken the pipe of septic tank and had flown the dirty water and thereby created nuisance. The SDM, Raigarh has passed an order on 3.5.2010 (Ex.-P/2) in Misc. Criminal Case No.13/2010 and issued notice to the respondents/ accused to remove such nuisance. Vide letter dated 2.8.2011 (Ex.-P/ 8), the SHO, PS Kotwali, Raigarh has been directed to take action under Section 188 of the IPC pursuant to which an FIR has been registered on 12.9.2011.

¶21

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. During trial, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses. After evaluating the evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the material witnesses having not been produced by the prosecution is not the mistake on the part of the complainant/appellant. It was the duty of the Court to call important witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and convict the respondents/ accused.

¶23

¶24

Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that proper procedure has not been followed as envisaged under Section 195 of the CrPC wherein it has been categorically provided that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance under Section 188 of the IPC unless a complaint is made. In the instant case, no proper complaint has been moved and the order of acquittal has been passed taking it as one of the grounds.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

Admittedly, in the instant case, no complaint has been made by the competent authority i.e. SDM, Raigarh. In this connection, provision of Section 195 (1)(a)(i) of the CrPC is relevant which reads thus:-

¶27

“ S.195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.

¶28

(1) No Court shall take cognizance--

¶29

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or

¶30

xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶31

except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;”

¶32

The learned Magistrate has passed the order of acquittal mentioning the same as one of the grounds of acquittal. Further, only 2 witnesses have been examined and they are the official

¶33

¶34

witnesses. Mahesh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) is the Reader of the SDM and Uma Gupta (PW-2) is the Sub Inspector, who has registered the FIR (Ex.-P/9). Both the witnesses in their cross-examination have categorically admitted that they are not aware as to what final order has been passed in the said case. Considering the aforesaid infirmities, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge levelled against them and the finding arrived at by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.

¶35

In the result, the Appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶36

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶37

Barve

Ramesh Agrawal v. Mohan Lal Agrawal And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Agrawal v. Mohan Lal Agrawal 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

Jawahar Vs Bharat and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Nilu Loniya

Ashok Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Munnilal

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla And Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Kuru and Others