Judicial Forum Not For Harassing A Person, But To Protect Parties' Rights: Madhya Pradesh HC Pulls Up Complainant For Suppressing Facts

While quashing a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed its displeasure with the act of the alleged complainant after noting that he had filed a "false affidavit" stating that the police authorities did not act or conduct an inquiry upon his complaint.In doing so, the court said that the respondent/complainant was not entitled to get any order from the court because he had suppressed very material information from the Court that police had conducted a detailed enquiry in which it was found that the alleged incident of Dacoity and Loot had not been committed.Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, “It is expected from a litigant to approach the court with all bonafides and without any ill-motive. The judicial forum is not available for harassing the person, but it is available to protect the right of the parties and therefore it is expected that all the correct facts should be placed before the court.In my opinion, the complainant/respondent No.2 in the existing circumstance was not entitled to get any order from the court because he had suppressed the very material information from the Court that police has conducted a detailed enquiry in which it is found that the incident of Dacoity and Loot has not been committed and suppressing that report and alleging that the police, on his complaint, did nothing and this false statement of the complainant prejudiced the Magistrate, therefore, he has passed the impugned order”.As per the facts of the case, the father of respondent No.2 made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission about the incident where respondent No.2 was badly beaten by the petitioners. On receiving the complaint, Human Rights Commission wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police instructing him to conduct an inquiry about the said incident and submit the report. The police conducted an inquiry and submitted a report stating that it was a case of accident and allegations made in the complaint were false because no injury was caused by any of the petitioners and at the same time a complaint was also filed by the respondent No.2/victim under Section 156(3) CrPC before the magisterial court for issuing a direction to the police to register an FIR against the petitioners. The judicial magistrate first class directed the police to submit a report of the alleged incident but before receiving the report, final order was passed in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 directing police to register an FIR against the petitioners.The counsel for the petitioners opposed the order and also the complaint made by the victim mainly on the ground that the complainant has suppressed material facts before the Court with regard to inquiry already conducted by the police and the conclusion drawn therein. The counsel submitted that along with the complaint, a false affidavit was also sworn by the injured before the JMFC and since the fact that the police had conducted an enquiry was not brought before the court, therefore, the Court below had issued direction to the police for registration of FIR.On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petition is not maintainable for the reason that the impugned order has been passed by the Court in a criminal proceeding and to challenge the same, the appropriate remedy is a revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the complainant (respondent No.2) had suppressed the material facts by not disclosing the same in the complaint filed before the court below.The counsel for the State submitted that the respondent/State had no direct role in the matter because the case had been registered against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint made by a private person i.e. respondent No.2.The court relied on the report submitted by the police after inquiry wherein it was found that though the incident had occurred but it was an accident, however, it was given a "shape of Loot and Dacoity" and the alleged accused were falsely implicated in the said offence. Further, relying upon the statements made in the affidavit, the court said, “It clearly indicates that the intention of the complainant was not bona-fide and he did not approach the court with clean hands and heart. He has suppressed the material facts before the court because had it been informed to the court that the police had already conducted an enquiry and prepared a report touching all the relevant aspects of the matter and found that it was a false complaint filed with an intention to implicate some persons in a crime to settle personal enmity, the complaint would have been rejected by the court.”The court relied on the judgement by Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2015) wherein very purpose of filing of an affidavit in support of complaint was...

Judicial Forum Not For Harassing A Person, But To Protect Parties' Rights: Madhya Pradesh HC Pulls Up Complainant For Suppressing Facts

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anukriti Mishra

Judicial Forum Not For Harassing A Person, But To Protect Parties' Rights: Madhya Pradesh HC Pulls Up Complainant For Suppressing Facts

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers