Suresh Kumar Mahto v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1286 of 2016

1. Suresh Kumar Mahto, S/o Bhagwat Mahto, aged about 45 years, Occupation- Driver, R/o Village Tarar, P.S. Daud Nagar, Dist. - Aurangabad, Bihar, Present Address - Village Bonda, P.S. Sariya, Dist. - Raigarh (C.G.)

2. Rajkumar Agrawal, S/o Late Banarsidas Agrawal, aged about 43 years, Occupation - Business, R/o Village Bonda, P.S. Sariya, Dist. - Raigarh (C.G.) [applicants no. 1 & 2] ---- Petitioners

Versus

State of C.G. through the Station House Officer, P.S. Sariya, Tehsil Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.) [Prosecution/Non-applicant] ----Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. D.P. Singh, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas J.

Order On Board 22/09/2021 (1) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth "Code") challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Criminal Revision No. 12/2016 by which the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision by affirming the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangarh in Criminal Case No. 26/2016. (2) The Facts as projected by the petitioner is that on 07.02.2016 at about 8.45 pm the police registered the FIR under the Crime No. 26/2016 for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against unknown persons on the information received from Kartik Ram Manjhi inter

alia on the ground that on 7.2.2016 at about 12 hours Nageshwar Manjhi (brother-in-law of the informant) and Vishnu Manjhi (son of informant) had gone to the house of in-laws of informant at village Kansidih and when they were returning by motorcycle at about 2 pm near Village Vishwaspur - Kudargarhi turn, some unknown vehicle dashed them and as a result thereof, both had died on the spot itself. Thereafter, the police recorded statements of Kartik Ram Manjhi, Prem Lal Manjhi, Duleshwar Manjhi and Rambhrosa Nishad under Section 161 of the CrPC on 9.2.2016 and the police firstly registered Dehati Nalishi on 7.2.2016 at about 3.20 pm against unknown persons. During investigation, the police recorded statement of Gopinath Sidar and Pranmati on 21.2.2016. According to them, one trailer bearing registration No. CG-10-M./0240 had dashed the two deceased persons and they known to the driver.

(3) After usual investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners on 4.11.2016 for committing the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and seized the trailer of petitioner No. 2 bearing registration No. CG 10 M 0240.

(4) The petitioner No. 2 made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh on 25.02.2016 stating inter alia that his trailer bearing registration No. CG 10 M 0240 has been falsely implicated in the case and prayed for further investigation in the matter. (5) Pursuant to the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, SubDivisional Officer (Police), Sarangarh after due enquiry on the matter, submitted a report before the SP, Raigarh on 27.4.2016 to the effect that vehicle of respondent No. 2 was not involved in the commission of offence as there is no entry of vehicle No. CG 10 M 0240 and the location of the cellphone of the driver - Suresh Kumar Mahto was different from the place of incident. It has also been held hat police personnel has conducted defective

investigation in the matter.

(6) Thana Incharge, Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh has made an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangarh, District Raigarh stating that there is defect in the prosecution case, therefore, exonerate the driver of the vehicle namely Suresh Kumar Mahto from the charges and the said vehicle, which was seized, be also released. The application filed by the police was rejected on 26.07.2016. The operative part of the order is extracted below:- "उपररो्ሹ वविविवेचन सवे ्ቚकरण ककी वविविवेचनना म वविविवेचक दनारना ऐससी करोई तቔ኎वट कनाररत वकयना जनानना दवरत नहीሻ है जजससवे ्ቚकरण म ज्቎रቔ኎दना विनाहन ससी.जसी. 10 एम. 0240 ककी ज्቎सी एविव आररोपसी सቔ኎रवेर महतरो वपतना भनागवित महतरो वक वगरफ्तनारसी वनरस्त वकयवे जनानवे कना आधनार ्ቚना्቎ हरोतना हरो । अततः ्ቚस्तቔ኎त आविवेदन अस्विसीकनार कर वनरस्त वकयना जनातना है तथना थनानना ्ቚभनारसी करो ्ቚकरण म वविविवेचनना सवप्ቐ कर वविजधवित् अवቇኌम कनायरविनाहसी वकयवे जनानवे हवेतቔ኎ वनदरवरत वकयना जनातना है ।"

Thereafter, the petitioner along with the accused has preferred a revision petition. The learned Revisional Court found that no irregularities and illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while passing the order dated 26.07.2016 dismissed the revision petition. (7) The driver of the vehicle and owner of the vehicle have filed the present CRMP assailing these order.

(8) When the question posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner that how the petitioner No. 2, who is owner of the vehicle, can aggrieve with the rejection order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate first Class as affirmed by the Revisional Court, he would submit that revision petition so far as it relates to the petitioner No. 2 - Rajkumar Agrawal is not maintainable. (9) From perusal of record, it is quite clear that no order, by which the petitioner No. 2 was aggrieved, has been passed by JMFC, Sarangarh as well as by Revisional Court, therefore, the instant petition so far as it relates to petitioner No. 2 is neither maintainable before this Court nor before the

Revisional Court, as such the petition filed by petitioner No. 2 is liable to be dismissed on this count.

(10) This Court has also examined the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to petitioner No. 1, he would submit that the police in its application filed before Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 6.6.2016 has categorically given a finding that due to defective investigation committed by the Constable 210 - Ramprasad Baghel, the investigation has not been carried out properly, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate should have allowed the application as according to Section 36 of Cr.P.C., the higher Authority can issue direction for further investigation. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class after examining the diary has given a following finding, which reproduced below :- "डनायरसी ्ቚवविवቖኌ वदननावक 23.02.

16 अनቔ኎सनार घटनना कवे ्ቚत्य्ቌदरቦኍ गविनाह गरोपसीननाथ जसदनार वि उसककी पत्नसी ्ቚनाणमवत जसदनार कवे कथन ककी तस्दसीक थनानना ्ቚभनारसी शसी गरोपनाल धቔ኎विर दनारना ककी गई जजसकवे पश्चनात् विनाहक क. CG 10 M 0240 कवे चनालक सቔ኎रवेर महतरो बवजनारसी कवेरर बरोदना दनारना घटनना करनना अपरनाध ्ቚमनावणत पनाए जनानवे सवे पतना तलनार वकयना गयना । विनाहन चनालक सቔ኎रवेर महतरो वपतना भनागवित महतरो सवे सम्ቌ गविनाहरो कቔ኎बवेरचवद कवेररविनानसी वि गजपवत डनसवेनना कवे घटनना कवे सवबवध म पूछतनाछ करनवे पर सቔ኎रवेर महतरो नवे जቔ኎मर स्विसीकनार कर घटनना वदननावक 07.02.16 करो कቔ኎धरगढसी मरोड पर एक्ससीडमट कर गनाडसी करो भगनाकर ससीधना जजन्दल वगटसी खनालसी करनना तथना रनावत विहना सवे फ्लनाई ऐर लवेकर वटमरलगना खनालसी कर दपूसरवे वदन गनाडसी करो धरोकर चलनानना तथना मनाजलक करो जनानकनारसी नहीሻ बतनानवे ककी ्ቚवविवቖኌ दवरत है । ज्቎ पतक अनቔ኎सनार वदननावक 23.02.

16 करो सቔ኎रवेर महतरो वपतना भनागवित महतरो सवे सम्ቌ गविनाह कቔ኎बवेरचवद कवेररविनानसी वि गजपवत डनसवेनना कवे एक टनाटना 10 चक्कना डम्फर सफवेद कवेवबन नसीलना बनाडसी पवजसीयन कव. CG 10 M 0240 चवे०नव० 396522BSZ205715, इव०नव० 70B62550334 मय चनाबसी आर.ससी. बቔ኎क, बसीमना म्यनाद 19.06.16 मध्य रनावत तक तथना चनालक सቔ኎रवेर महतरो कना डडनायवविवग लनायसमस कव० 3870/06 जनारसी वदननावक 30.03.12 झनाररखण्ड सरकनार ज्቎ वकयना जनानना दवरत है । वगरफ्तनारसी पतक सवे सቔ኎रवेर महतरो वपतना भनागवित महतरो करो वदननावक 23.02.

(11) Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out the perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate in its order as mentioned above, therefore, the learned Revisional Court has rightly rejected the Revision petition filed by the petitioner No. 1 also on the count that no material illegality or irregularities has been committed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in rejecting the said application. This Court has also enquired the facts and also call the diary of the case and diary of the case would fortify the findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as affirmed by the Revisional Court, therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court.

(12) Thus, the present CRMP on two counts i.e. one is not maintainable so far as it relates to petitioner No. 2 whereas so far as it relates to petitioner No. 1, the petition Cr.M.P., being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

(13) This Court has granted interim protection to the petitioners vide order dated 24.11.2016. Interim relief granted on 24.11.2016 was continued till today. The same shall stand vacated. The trial Court is directed to proceed further with the Criminal Case No. 1236 of 2016 and shall make all endeavour to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (14) With the aforesaid direction and observation, the present CRMP is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Amita/-