1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 835/2009 Kanhaiya Lal and another Vs. Lakhan Lal Dubey For the Applicants : Shri Vijay Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Himanshu Chourasia, Advocate. ORDER (oral) (04/11/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. The applicants/complainants, have filed this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the First Add. Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No.233/08 whereby allowing such revision till the extent of respondent Lakhan Lal Dubey, the order dated 1.10.08 passed by JMFC, Niwari in Criminal Case No.754/08 (filed by the applicants as private complainant) taking cognizance against the respondent and other co-accused for the offence of section 294,323,392,427,436,458 and 506-II of the IPC, has been affirmed against all other accused except the present respondent. As such, till the extent of respondent the aforesaid order of the trial court has been set aside and modified while such order has been affirmed by dismissing the revision of other co-accused. 2. Having heard at length, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the applicants counsel, I have carefully gone through the complaint filed by the applicants/complainants along with the evidence led by them under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C and also the order of the trial court as well as the impugned order of the revisional court. 3. As per case of the present applicants complainants, some quarrel alleged 2 incident took place in the village between the complainants party and the party of the other co-accused, except the respondent, against whom also the cognizance of the alleged offence was taken by the trial court for which complainants went to the police station to lodge the report where as per allegation, their report was not registered by the respondent who was posted as S.H.O. of such Police Station. As per further allegation, subsequent to the aforesaid earlier incident of the quarrel, the impugned incident took place in the village. At that time, the respondent Lakhan Lal, being SHO of the Police Station was present in the village and did not protect the complainants and their property from the co-accused. In that regard a report in writing dated 26.9.07 was also sent to the senior police officials on behalf of the complainants but no action was taken by any of the authority against the respondent. In such premises, prayer for taking the cognizance of the alleged offence along with the other co-accused against the respondent was made in the impugned complaint. 4. After recording the evidence under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C by the trial court, on appreciation, the cognizance of the aforesaid offences were taken against all the accused including the respondent. On challenging such order before the subordinate revisional court by all the accused, including the respondent,the same was allowed in part till the extent of the respondent and the order of the trial court taking the cognizance of alleged offence against the respondent has been set aside while dismissing the revision of other co-accused till that extent of other accused, such order has been affirmed, on which, the complainants have come forward to this court with this revision. 5. After perusing the record and in view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the matter, I am of the considered view that the revisional court has not committed any error in setting aside the cognizance of the offence taken by the trial court 3 against the present respondent. It is apparent from the aforesaid facts that the impugned offence was relating to the quarrel, beating and dispute between some private parties the complainants and the other co-accused and in their such dispute and incident no active role was played by the respondent police officer and, therefore, in a dispute of the private parties,in the available circumstances of the case, no cognizance could be taken against the respondent by any of the courts below. 6. In such premises, I have not found any perversity, illegality, infirmity or anything against the propriety of the law in the order impugned passed by the revisional court. Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. 7. However, it is made clear that this order or the order of the subordinate court shall not come in the way of the applicants if any appropriate proceedings, permissible under the law, is initiated separately by them before the appropriate forum with respect of any act of the respondent by which he had either acted or omitted his duty as S.H.O. of such Police Station. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 4