Blog

This petition is partly allowed only to the extent that direction given to the applicants to remain present before the trial Court on 12.8.2021 and the impugned order passed by the revisional Court in this regard is set aside by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of RAKESH V. ISMAIL through HON’BLE JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts giving rise to this petition are that Respondent No.1/complainant Ismail S/O Ibrahim filed an application before the Court of Tehsildar Mandsaur for cancellation of an order of mutation, passed in respect of land bearing survey No.154/2 (0.540 hectares) situated in village Tigariya, Tehsil & District Mandsaur, stating therein that Anwar prepared a forged Hibanama of his deceased brother Ibrahim s/O Ibrahim for taking advantage of the same name of the respondent No.1 and on the basis of the said Hibanama, he with the help of Liyakat, Shakeel and Raees Mansoori got the above land mutated in his name. On the basis of said complaint, Tehsildar vide order dated 17.8.2017 cancelled the aforesaid order of mutation passed in favour of Anwar and directed the Police to take appropriate action in the matter. In pursuance of which on the basis of the written complaint made by respondent no. 1, an FIR bearing Crime No.123/2007 was registered at P.S. Nai Abadi, Mandsaur against Anwar, Liyakat, Shakeel, and Raees Mansoori. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC against all the above four accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 120-B of IPC, and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur.

JUDGEMENT
It is clear that the process of summoning other persons, involved in the crime is only a part of the process of taking cognizance and if a Private Criminal Complaint u/S 200 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for impleading other persons as accused making allegations that the police is intentionally not taking action against them, then certainly the same can only be considered by the Court of JMFC, who had taken the cognizance in the matter. In the instant case initially, the cognizance was taken by the Court of JMFC, Mandsaur, therefore learned revisional court has not committed any error in setting aside the order dated 11.07.2018, passed by the Court of JMFC, Mandsaur, and remanding the matter back to the said Court, for adjudicating the same on merits, but so far as direction to the applicants to remain present along with respondents No.1 to 3 on 12.8.2021 before the trial Court i.e. the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur is concerned, the same cannot be upheld as order to summon the applicants has not yet been passed by the trial Court. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion this petition is partly allowed only to the extent that direction given to the applicants to remain present before the trial Court on 12.8.2021 and the impugned order passed by the revisional Court in this regard is set aside. So far as the rest part of the impugned order is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the petition in this regard stands dismissed with a direction that the learned trial Court shall decide the criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.1 on merit as per law.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI