Case Not Registered Under Proper Sections To Extend Benefits To Accused: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Action Against Police Officers

Zeeshan Thomas

25 Feb 2022 4:25 AM GMT

  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
  • Case Not Registered Under Proper Sections To Extend Benefits To Accused: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Action Against Police Officers

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the Superintendent of Police, District Shahdol to take appropriate action against the 'delinquent' police officers for not registering a case under proper sections, allegedly to extend the benefits to the accused. Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with the second bail application moved by the Applicant accused U/S 409, 420...

    The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the Superintendent of Police, District Shahdol to take appropriate action against the 'delinquent' police officers for not registering a case under proper sections, allegedly to extend the benefits to the accused.

    Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with the second bail application moved by the Applicant accused U/S 409, 420 & 34 IPC.

    As per the prosecution story, the Applicant had cheated the Complainant by misrepresentation. Some investments were made by the Complainant and others through the Applicant in the share market. On asking for the payment, the cheques were issued by the Applicant, which were dishonoured.

    The Applicant sought for grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial. He argued that keeping him in custody for a long period would amount to pre-trial conviction. He submitted that there was virtually no progress in the trial. He further argued that the Complainant, by their own sweet will, had agreed to deposit the amount through him in the share market, therefore, it could not be a case of cheating. He submitted that the F.I.R. was registered when there was loss in the share market. The cheques that were issued by him were dishonoured, therefore, at the most, case under the Negotiable Instruments Act could have been registered against him. He also mentioned that the other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

    Per contra, the State and the Objector vehemently opposed the application stating that the offence was registered in the year 2015 and the Applicant had absconded for a considerable period of almost 7 years and was later arrested with great difficulty. They submitted that the case involved money to the amount of more than Rs. 1 Crore. They further argued that the Applicant showed himself to be a licenced and registered share broker, and that he asked the Complainant and others to invest through him and and assured them of profits. However, they contended, he did not have the requisite license.

    The State and the Objector also submitted that there was nothing on record to show that the Applicant is a registered share market broker. Even otherwise, they argued, if it was presumed that he was having a DMAT account in his name, then the said DMAT account would be for his own use only. He could not have invested for others through DMAT account without there being any proper licence for the said purpose. It was asserted by the State and the Objector that the Applicant, by a false play, got the Complainant and others to invest into the share market through him. They conveyed to the Court that if the Applicant was enlarged on bail, there was every possibility that he would abscond again. With regard to parity with other accused, they argued that the case of the other co-accused was entirely different from that of the Applicant.

    Considering the submissions of the Parties, the Court held that it was not inclined to grant bail to the accused. However, it brought its attention towards the framing of charges. The Court, while perusing the documents on record, had posed a question to the State, vide order dated 14.02.2022-

    Counsel for the State is also directed to call the S.H.O P.S Kotwali, District Shahdol to explain that why in such cases only an offences registered under Section 409, 420 and 34 of IPC has been registered despite there are specific acts and criminal procedure made for such activities.

    The Court enquired from the Investigating Officer concerned, who was present in-person, as to whether any offences under statutes regarding financial irregularities were made out against the Applicant or not. To the said query, the Officer submitted that other offences were indeed made out in the case against the Applicant. He defended himself before the Court by submitting that as he had recently joined the Police Station and was handed over the case diary, he had no knowledge regarding the manner in which the investigation was being carried out. He assured the Court that he would take all possible steps to get the other offences registered against the Applicant with the permission of the trial court.

    Considering the submissions of the IO, the Court observed-

    From the perusal of the documents and the case diary, it is apparently clear that this case is with respect to making huge investments in share market without their being any proper licence or approval from the government for the same. The same is with respect to embezzlement of a huge amount without proper authority of law. In such circumstances, offences under the RBI Act etc. are clearly made out against the present applicant. The aforesaid offences are not being registered from the very beginning itself and the matter was being taken up by the Investigating Officers in the matter

    With the aforesaid observations, the Court directed the SP concerned to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the officers-

    Let the matter be placed before the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol to look into the same and take appropriate action against the concerning delinquent employees who have not registered the case under the proper sections just to extend the benefits to the accused. Let the compliance action taken report be submitted within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order

    Applicant represented by Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava

    State represented by Mr. Sanjeev Singh

    Objector represented by Mr. Yogesh Soni

    Case Title: SANJAY SINGH BAGHEL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 45

    Click Here To Read/Download Order


    Next Story