HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J.
CRIMINAL REVISION No.824/2000
Sitaram Lodhi and others
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan Gujar, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the non applicants, though served.
O R D E R
(Reserved on 26/07/2018)
(Delivered on 31/07/2018)
This Criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 3/4/2000
passed by JMFC Begumganj, Distt. Raisen whereby learned JMFC rejected
the applicant’s private complaint filed against the non-applicants to take
cognizance against them for the offence punishable under Sections 466, 468,
471, 420, 494 and 120B of the IPC against the non-applicants.
2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this
petition are that the applicant filed a private complaint before JMFC,
Begumganj averring that non-applicant no.1 Sitaram Lodhi, who was
already married, abducted her daughter, who was minor at the time of
incident, with the help of non-applicant no.2 Ismail Khan. Regarding that
incident, applicant lodged a report against the non-applicant nos.1 2 at
P.S. Khurai, Distt. Sagar. On that report, police registered Crime no.41/1999
for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(a)/34 of the IPC against
the non-applicant nos.1 2. They in connivance with the non-applicant no.3
manipulated the school record of government middle school and changed
the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the school record. In the school
record, earlier his daughter’s date of birth was mentioned as 18/11/81
and non-applicant nos.1 2 in connivance with non-applicant no.3 got it
changed to 18/11/80 and on that basis non-applicants prepared forged mark-
sheet of Class-VIIth of the prosecutrix for showing her as major and non
applicant nos.1 2 produced that mark sheet before the High Court for
getting anticipatory bail, in that crime. Applicant further averred that non-
applicant no.1, who was already married got again married with the
prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of the incident. So cognizance has
been taken against the non-applicant nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable
under Sections 466, 468, 471, 420, 494 and 120B of the IPC. On that,
learned JMFC recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200
of the CrPC and also recorded the statement of R.K. Saha and Pooran Singh
under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and also called the enquiry report from
S.D.O.P. Begamganj. Thereafter, by order dated 3/4/2000 rejected the
applicant’s complaint observing that it did not appear prima facie that the
non-applicants prepared forged mark sheet of the prosecutrix and there is no
evidence on record to show that non-applicant no.1 Sitaram solemnized
marriage with the prosecutrix according to hindu custom. Regarding
allegation that non-applicant nos.1 2 produced that forged mark sheet
before the High Court for getting anticipatory bail, for the offence
punishable under Section 471 of IPC, Court can only take cognizance of this
offence on the complaint only of the Court as mentioned in the Section 195
of Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved from the order, applicant filed this criminal
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence
produced by the applicant before the trial Court prima facie it is clear that
non-applicant no.1 Sitaram Lodhi, who was already married, solemnized
marriage with her daughter, who was minor at the time of marriage.
Likewise from the statement of complainant and his witness R.K. Saha and
the document produced by the applicant in support of his complaint, it is
clearly proved that non-applicant nos. 1 2 in connivance with non-
applicant no.3 manipulated the school record of government middle school
and changed the date of birth of prosecutrix in the school record, where
previously the date of birth of his daughter was mentioned as 18/11/ 81, and
non-applicant nos.1 2 in connivance with the non-applicant no.3 got it
changed as 18/11/80 and on that basis non-applicant no.3 prepared forged
mark-sheet of Class-VIIth of the prosecutrix for showing her major and non
applicant nos.1 2 produced that mark sheet before the High Court for
getting anticipatory bail, in that crime. Learned trial Court wrongly rejected
the applicant’s complaint.
4. None appeared for the non applicants though served.
5. This Court has gone through the record and the arguments put forth by
learned counsel for the applicant. Although, from the statement of applicant
and his witness R.K. Saha and the document produced by the applicant in
support of his complaint it appears that in the school record, previously the
date of birth of applicant’s daughter had been mentioned as 18/11/81 and
later somebody changed it to 18/11/80. But, there is no evidence on record
that the non-applicants nos.1 to 3 changed the date of birth of applicant’s
daughter in the school record. Likewise regarding offence of bigamy
although, the applicant deposed that the non-applicant no.1 was already
married, even then he made sexual relationship with the prosecutrix but
there is no evidence on record to show that non-applicant no.1 Sitaram
before marrying with applicant’s daughter was legally married with another
woman and his earlier marriage was in existence at the time of incident. But
it appears from the photocopy of order of this Court passed in M.CR.C. No.
2534/1999 that in that case, non-applicants no.1 and 2 produced a mark-
sheet of the applicant’s daughter in support of their bail application in which
her date of birth was mentioned 18/11/80. While in the school record, the
date of birth of applicant’s daughter is mentioned as 18/11/81. From that it
seemed possible non-applicants No.1 and 2 either prepared the forged
marksheet themselves or in connivance with the other person and possessed
that mark-sheet, knowing it to be forged and intended to use it as genuine
before producing it before the Court. But the applicant neither produced the
copy of the mark sheet which was allegedly produced by the non-applicant
nos.1 2 before this Court in M.CR.C. No. 2534/1999 nor the certified
copy of the order passed by this Court in M.CR.C. No. 2534/1999.
Applicant did not even call the record of M.CR.C. No. 2534/1999 for
proving the fact that the non-applicants no.1 2 produced the forged
marksheet of the applicant’s daughter in M.CR.C. No. 2534/1999.
6. So, in the interest of justice, the impugned order passed by the learned
trial Court is set aside without commenting on merits and the case is
remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction that the learned
trial Court will give an opportunity to the applicant to produce further
evidence and shall pass a reasoned order thereafter.
7. Applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on 05/09/18.
Office is also directed to send the record along with the order of this Court
to the trial Court.
With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Digitally signed by MONIKA
Date: 2018.07.31 10:28:48