^ )fc' ..^'•'•K^- ^^-"^..••^••^'•^ wswl ...- "'"<^ t4i'l^- w^..->--"" ^j»^- ..•• \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CMI-IATTSIGARH AT BILASPUR ' Cr.M.P.No. f6<^ 12005 PETITIONER PROPOSEDACCUSED fh RESPONDENTS Anguri Devi VWo Ved Prakash, age 60 years, Gaste-Agrawal, rfo Ludeg, P.S. Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, C.G, VERSUS I.The State of Ghhattisgarh, throOgh District Magistrate, Jashpur, C.G. PROSECUTION 2. Rajendra Prasad Agrawal s/o Ramehandra Agrawal, aged about 52 years, r/o Patthalgaon, District Jashpyr, C.G. ^ CQMPLAlNANt PETITION UNDER SECTION 482'OF THE COQE^F GRIM1NAL PRQCEDURE AGAINSTTME ORDERJ3ATED 31'08.2006 PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVIS10N N0 20iS005 BY THE ADDITIQNAL SESSIO'NS JUDGE. JASHpUR, DISTRICT ^IASHPUR, G.G ARISING OUT OF ORDEI?? DA D 02.08^5Q5_ RASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE N0. 113/2003 ^BY THE CHlEF JUDI©]AL MAGlSTRATE.JASWBUR.@ISiRIGT^ASHPUR,K<3.BYWHIGH APPLIGATION UNDER SBffil^N M9 C^P^ RILED BY^^TO PROSECUTION FOR ABWNO THE PETmONER__M_AN ACCUSEDHAS BEEtlAAU-OWE& 1 . 1 ( . ! Bl 8M11B ^SsSI MM BIBH :o'rd ^ ,:'/ <tl ro psunqsjun KpoqM SBM •|U3iu9^e|)s qssyg wyeajst^ pire pueq gsi si^] ya^u siqjopioq •ya^wea °^ods sip Suunp iwp z wle^m. pssodsp i-y^j siq iq •9UIU3 jo uoissnumoo sig SBM sqs •i.eqipsye^s sq i]8noip uie'g ino siuoq osp si sousAinaoo jo siy. •sousjjnooojo suni. ?ipfe yaas^.sd no ^UBSSB sqt m psiBdpiped IA^Q ussq SBq li ''^"I'j pres siy. iq •IA^( qsasp^ 'qssma 'viSQ'spe^ fsmv'Sv IBM&lSv pesny BJpiof^g suo '; sitsos UIPQ 'ZOOK 'O'd'Q 81{l!^(l P8I9 uoiTB?iiddB;lre aqi 'IASQ unSuv SiHpBsidun pausproo sjBModjo ssrajgxs m £OOZ/£ll "°N 9SBO yvmnio ro sqiAqpsssed SOOZ'SZ psiBp J»p^ pmmuo ro jndqsef 'sSpdf psiBp J8pjo sqi isureS« pspsjip si •uoissimpEjo '(IW-'O SPP 'ssived sqt JQJ psuno; •s^is avp. joj siBOOApv "lUBOiiddB 3(pJOJpSI]R103 l^llehjyte^ £,,,: tlMteJt gh&J ^ (Bhlht h[)»Ujh.ltb siqj, \vyB\, v ^q IU!II paiinBSse ({jo ppq ii^nw qssuiQ siiqM pueql svcseo IASQ unSuv 'soTisjjnooo 9iy\ [ iBAvejgy pcsejj wpusfe-g 'Aiomcissi ^ ro svedayied y>v pip inq lusssjd jdoQjo •pisui9i%)s Areip sseo eip mog 8ip ya TASQ ungijv jo souassjd SBM pUB pMe.fSv PBSBJJ CJpUSfe'a unSuv ^eip psuoiiasm K(JB3p] i4a unSuv viB3((dde yissajd sip pue ^wSpvpys^ -s-j ui •^•rj sip psSpoi r,'ovL uo TBW 3JB spBjjsua •SWVL'nvo ^iodn 'pasnoo^ ue SB uiwsq lueoiiddB 'O'd'-iO J° 6IC uoipss Jspun I^pipnf jsiio sqi y(qsjaqA\| ^ndqsBf 'ajBJisiSBp^ pioipnf J3ii{0 sqi Suiuuige SOOZ/OZ '°N UOISIASJ] !^S 'IPPV si& ^q psssed 900Z-8'I£ 90!0?/09T 'ON •JWJO SH(I w' ^ es^ye /CitBugpjesq s( 900Z/09I 'ON psn-tBsi siy.jo issnbsj sqt iv I'IAOQ '(BMCjSv •s ABftng uqg PSIUBSI 'pflsay •^-y mis psj^pjo si^j}Sigeyi{ :-u-sz ji^uspyftiftuaa iblhtli li-bllp IfciU *j^bj ii;yK> IfihljfeKhjA&Ue fc) OOZf ifete ..:.riri'.............. ttoifctttsiuitiit :1 ^3y$"^'"y^N"iQ'"m' •>?;141W;ls] '91,»gi 'h.l.>IISIh.*-l=°.P 8/.-3H-IX XI-HC-78 *11*IMI a>*TT<h 3?g''<<l<41<'l<4,E9Tflu'IS, IsKIK-iy ^^.'^^ .No-Ue ^tr "nq;200^ Sli^l.Haw (y<t^'a<<<5T) SII^Tqirf^iW (raT3TR?TsbH|cn ?RTRKtri?cf3n^T <t>l<<f<1<fl-f WRTT ff fec^ rfSfRR <y^r ^STf^R'an^r cross-examination. Not a-single qu^stion was asked to Rajendra Prasad Agrawal to show that Anguri De^i was not present at the scene of occurrence. On fhis premises, upon an 14.7.2005, leamed Chief Ju^cial 2.8.2005 impleading An^ui Dtevi < application filed by the D.P.O on Magish-ate passed on order dated s an accused in exercise ofpowers under Section 319 ofCr.P.C. Leamed counsel for fhe appllicant submitted that fhe impugned order is unsustainable in law becau^e after eulmination ofinvestigation, the Police, on the basis of state(nent of Gopi Ram, came to the conclusion tiiat Anguri Devi did n(rt participate in the commission of crime and therefore, she was not arr{iyed as ait accused. On tfais premise it was argued that the impleadmg of Anguri Devi as an accused merely on the basis of the statement of R4jendra Prasad Agrawal was wholly contrary to law and in excess ofjurjsdietion vested in the ChiefJudicial Magistrate imder Section 319 ofCr.P.C. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal argued in support ofthe jmpugnedjudgpient. Having heard the rival sut|missions, I am of the eonsidered opinionthattiusCr.M.P. is devoidbfanymerit. It was held by the Apex Court'in para 9 ofGirish Yadav aW Others Vs. State ofM.P. A.1.R. 1996 Supreme Court-3098:- "Once it is fownd tha^ the FIR 'was promptly lodged after the incid^it which sets in motion the Police machiiserv which started investigation on spot ^mmediately thereafter, it must be held fhM ^ie contents ofthe FIR would reflect the flrs^ hand account of what ^.T.O. /' XI-HC-78 *ii*i<'irsii«Trai s'g' '<ii<iin<<, ®Tn«'i<o,Rictiti^<. . Cy M.P'NO. fgo C1r •"^200^ 3lT^?T<<a<*> (lcl^st^!ST) sn^T^f^TW (RT3fI^Tsb1 V Priya w •^^ -^^' CTaTWdfersn^r had actually happetwS{ responsibleforthe off^ Viewing the facts oftiie pres|ent is seen that the name ofAnguri Dev( Agrawal in Ae prompt F.I.R. lod^e) ,'K Couft, issioln the complicity of Anguri Devi iri.fli^ his testimoay before the trial Devi participated in the commissio|n while Rakesh assaulted him with ^ question was asked regarding the ab^ ofoccurrence. In this view ofthe m]atter, was mentioned by Rajendra Prasad and this fact was duly corroborated l^y hii it eannot be said that the leamed with material in-egularity or cotnn^itted affirming tiie order of impleading| Section 319 ofCr.P.C. Jbere is abs|olutely that tfae Courts below have acted nl) them.' - - Iri this view ofthe matter, thij is dismissed atfhe stage ofadnussio^ Aeeordingly, M.Cr.P. No. dismissed. °hi<ifa41-i ii*iCTT^'te^)'<Rf+<ii<. •l— ' ^srf^iran^r f on spot cmd who were \»cein question ". case in the above perspective, it was meirtioned by Rajendra Prasad |1 by him on 7.10.2002. It showed b eommission of crime. Later on in he again mentioned that Anguri of crime and held his right hand 'latiu'. In cross-examination, no ^ence ofAnguri Devi from the scene ^tter, since the name of Anguri Devi fYgrawal in the pronqrt F.I.R. lodged y his unrebutted testimony in Court, ^ddl. Sessions Judge, Jashpur acted any manifest error of law in the applicant as an aceused under nothing on record to suggest excess ofthejurisdictionvested in Cr.M.P. being devoid ofany merit 1. 21373/2006 for grant of stay is also •< Sd-/' Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O. i,a