SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kishor @ Kalliram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2018

1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.398/2018
(Kishor @ Kalliram vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 29.01.2018
Shri S.S. Rajput, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Awasthi, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

The Superintendent of Police, Guna is present in
person in compliance of order dated 25.1.2018.

SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Guna is also
present in person.

Case diary is available.

This is eighth application filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The first application was dismissed
as withdrawn by order dated 3.2.2016 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.1271/2016. The second application was
dismissed by order dated 28.4.2016 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.2425/2016. The third application was dismissed
by order dated 6.1.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14934/2016.
The fourth application was dismissed by peremptory order
dated 24.3.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2670/2017. The fifth
application was dismissed by order dated 4.5.2017 passed
in M.Cr.C.No.4301/2017. The sixth application was
dismissed by order dated 26.7.2017 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.7504/2017 and the seventh application was
dismissed on merits by order dated 23.10.2017 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.11369/2017.

The applicant has been arrested on 6.12.2015 in
connection with Crime No.628/2015 registered by Police
Station Kotwali, District Guna for offence punishable under
Section 370 of IPC.

2

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.398/2018
(Kishor @ Kalliram vs. State of M.P.)

This application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was filed
on the ground of delay in trial. It was mentioned that on
several occasions, the prosecutrix has not appeared and
even the Investigating Officer has given in writing to the
Trial Court that the addresses of the prosecutrix are not
traceable.

This Court by order dated 23.10.2017 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.11369/2017 had specifically expressed that a
very casual report has been submitted by the Investigating
Officer with regard to the fact that the ladies are not
traceable. However, it was observed that the Investigating
Officer shall trace out the whereabouts of the witnesses and
they shall be produced before the Trial Court for recording
of their evidence.

It is submitted that in spite of the said observation,
the prosecution did not produce the witnesses and the trial
is getting delayed.

Considering the conduct of the Investigating Officer as
well as the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Guna, this
Court by order dated 15.1.2018 had directed the
Investigating Officer as well as the Town Inspector/SHO,
Police Station Kotwali, District Guna to remain present
before this Court on 25.1.2018. On 25.1.2018, it was found
that the efforts made by the prosecuting agency to trace
out the whereabouts of the prosecutrix are not satisfactory
and even the ASI, who had gone to serve the summons on
the prosecutrix, had in fact wasted the precious time by
staying at Beena on every occasion without any rhyme or
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.398/2018
(Kishor @ Kalliram vs. State of M.P.)

reason and, therefore, this Court by order dated 25.1.2018
directed the Superintendent of Police, Guna to remain
present before this Court.

In compliance of the said order, the Superintendent of
Police, Guna is present. A reply has been filed by the State
mentioning therein that both the prosecutrix have been
traced and they shall appear before the Trial Court on 1 st
and 2nd February, 2018. It is also mentioned that for coming
from Nagpur, a person has to travel Beena and thereafter
he has to change the train for coming to Guna and because
of that, sometimes the precious time was wasted, but that
was not intentional.

So far as the wastage of time by the ASI at Beena is
concerned, some Rojnamcha Sanhas were produced on the
last date of hearing, which have been referred in the order
dated 25.1.2018, from which it is clear that after reaching
Beena from Nagpur in the night, the concerning ASI
thereafter reached Guna sometimes at 5:30 or 6:30 in the
evening of the next day. Beena and Guna are connected by
road transport. Once again, the Superintendent of Police,
Guna inspite of taking a serious note of this fact of
overstaying of concerning ASI was without any rhyme or
reason has tried to save him by saying that because of non-
availability of the train from Beena to Guna the concerning
ASI was required to stay back for more than 20 hours at
Beena itself. However, during the course of hearing, the
Superintendent of Police, Guna fairly conceded that Beena
is connected with Guna with road transport also.

4

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.398/2018
(Kishor @ Kalliram vs. State of M.P.)

So far as the conduct of the SHO, Police Station
Kotwali, District Guna in casually handling the matter
inspite of an observation which was already made by this
Court by order dated 23.10.2017 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.11369/2017 is concerned, it is clear that the
concerning SHO did not monitor the conduct of the
concerning ASI in not making serious efforts for the service
of summons. Although the Superintendent of Police, Guna
has expressed that earlier the Nagpur Police was not
cooperating with the police of Guna District, but he fairly
conceded that only after his intervention, with the help of
Nagpur Police, the prosecutrix have been traced out. It is
really surprising that unless and until the senior officers
intervenes in the matter, the subordinate police personnel
do not make any effort to execute the warrants on the
witnesses. It was fairly conceded by the SHO, Police Station
Kotwali, District Guna that he never brought the factum of
non-cooperation by Nagpur Police to the notice of
Superintendent of Police, Guna, although on several
occasions he had met with him either official or on personal
basis.

Be that whatever it may be.

It is for the Superintendent of Police of a concerning
district to look into the affairs of his subordinates. In the
present case, since the Superintendent of Police, Guna has
submitted that he will look into the matter and would take
disciplinary action against the delinquent officer, therefore,
no further observation is required.

5

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.398/2018
(Kishor @ Kalliram vs. State of M.P.)

Since both the prosecutrix have been traced out and it
has been assured by the Superintendent of Police, Guna
that they shall be produced before the Trial Court on the
next date of hearing, nothing survives in this application.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge

ALOK KUMAR
2018.02.01 10:43:37 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh