SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Uma Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2018


M.Cr.C. No.8976/2018
(Uma Uikey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh another)

Jabalpur, dated 13.08.2018
Shri Siddharth Radhelal Gupta, Advocate for the
Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the
respondent no.1-State.
None present for the respondent no.2.
Shri Vikas Sharma, Advocate for the
Order passed on I.A. No.8088/2018 separately, signed
and dated.
List the matter after two weeks.
Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date
of hearing.

(Sushil Kumar Palo)

M.Cr.C. No.8976/2018
Uma Uikey


State of Madhya Pradesh another

Shri Siddharth Radhelal Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.D. Khan, Government Advocate for the respondent
None present for the respondent no.2.
Shri Vikas Sharma, Advocate for the objector/intervenor.
Present: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Palo.


The objector has filed an application (I.A.

No.8088/2018) to participate in the case as an intervenor.

2. It would be appropriate to discuss the

background of this case before proceeding to decide the

application. Prosecutrix/respondent no.2 lodged report, on

the basis of which, Crime No.243/2015 was registered at

Police Station Umreth, District Chhindwara for the offence

punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(d), 363,

343 and 506 of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the

Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. The prosecutrix respondent no.2 lodged the

report before the Mahila Prakoshtha, Chhindwara which was

subsequently sent to Police Station Umreth. According to

this report, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years at about

4.45 pm on 17.10.2015 lodged the report against (the

proposed intervenes) Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha S/o

Rooplal Birha, aged about 43 years, village Kheraji, Police

Chauki Rawanwada. The prosecutrix, a resident of Parasiya

was doing labour work. She lost her father. Her mother

Uma Uikey (the applicant in the present case) has been

living and working at Bhopal. Her elder brother Rahul is in

custody in connection with a theft case. The prosecutrix is

living with a known person namely Mamta, to whom she

calls ‘Didi’. On 11.10.2015 at about 5.00 pm, she was going

to Koshmi temple for performing worship. She tried to stop

2-3 auto rickshaws but none stopped, as they were all full

with passengers. A white coloured car came in, which was

being driven by Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha (proposed

intervenor) and promised her to drop at the temple. She got

into the vehicle. Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha drove the

vehicle towards Umreth road; when she opposed and said

that this is not the road to Koshmi temple, Jai Shankar @

Deepu Birha told her that he has a little work at a small

distance, after finishing the same he will drop her. He took

her to Gajandoh jungle and stopped the vehicle. It was

about 6.00 pm. Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha forcibly took her

out from the vehicle and into the forest and under a

bamboo tree throwing her forcibly committed sexual

intercourse. He told her that she should not disclose this

incident to anyone, if she informs anyone, she will be killed.

When she informed that nobody is there in her family, he

took her into the vehicle and drove towards Umreth.

4. He took her to a house and kept there in

confinement for about 4-5 days. During this period she was

again subjected to sexual intercourse. Because it was night,

she could not know where she was kept. On 16.10.2015 at

about 6.00 pm, she was taken by Jai Shankar @ Deepu

Birha, dropped her near Sai temple, Parasiya. She reached

her home at about 7.00 pm and informed the incident to

Mamta didi. Mamta refused to go to the police station with

her. Therefore, she went to the Mahila Prakoshtha and

lodged the report. This report was transmitted to the Police

Station Umreth and Crime No.243/2015 was registered,

against the applicant Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha for

offences as mentioned above.

5. It would be appropriate to mention here that, Jai

Shankar @ Deepu Birha is an officer in the coal mine.

Subsequently, Crime No.19/2018 has been lodged at Police

Station, Parasiya on the report of the same prosecutrix,

wherein she alleged that she has studied upto Class-VII.

She is resident of Khamra Jethu and living at Surajpura

under Police Station Najirabad, Bhopal. Around two and half

years ago in the month of October, 2015 she was living at a

rented Penchveli Chief House, Parasiya owned by Rajendra

Dehariya. She was doing labour work. Accused Bhim Bagde

used to come to the house of Rajendra Dehariya (the land

lord of the prosecutrix) often, therefore, she knew accused

Bhim Bagde. Bhim Bagde called her by phone asked to

come in the evening. She reached to Bhim Bagde. He took

her by his motorcycle to accused Ravi Anna, where accused

Sandeep Taram was also present. All the three accused

persons then discussed for some time. Accused Ravi Anna

said to her that, Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha (proposed

intervenor) has to be implicated in a case of rape. When the

prosecutrix said that she do not know Jai Shankar @ Deepu

Birha and refused to help them, Ravi Anna shown a

photograph of Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha. He caught her

neck, tried to strangulate and threatened her that, if she do

not follow his dictates, her and her mother will be killed.

Ravi Anna then took her to his house, where the accused

Durgabai was living. Bhim Bagde and Sandeep Taram left

for their home. They deliberately left the prosecutrix in the

house of Ravi Anna at village Khirsadoh in the night.

Accused Ravi Anna committed sexual intercourse with her

and threatened her not to inform anyone, otherwise she will

be killed. In the next day Ravi Anna brought new clothes for

her. Thereafter, she was lodged the report at Mahila

Prakoshth, Chhindwara, which later sent to and registered

as Crime No.243/2015 at Police Station Umreth.

6. It is stated by the intervenor that to implicate

him (Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha) for an offence under

Section 376 of I.P.C., Anees Khan had given lakh to

accused Bhim Bagde. Because Anees Khan had to settled

scores with Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha. In this regard, they

chalked out a conspiracy and planned to implicate Jai

Shankar @ Deepu Birha, who is an officer in coal mine,

where Anees Khan is a contractor. After the false report

lodged, the prosecutrix was taken to Bhopal

7. Ravi Anna asked to Anees Khan and demanded

money but Anees Khan asked him not to come and said he

will send the money. Anees Khan sent money to accused

Chand Khan in four installments to be paid to Ravi Anna. It

is claimed that conspiracy was hatched by Anees Khan with

the help of Chand Khan. Bhim Bagde and Sandeep Taram

executed the same, using the prosecutrix as an instrument

to implicate the proposed intervenor Jai Shankar @ Deepu


8. The present applicant Uma Uikey is the mother

of the prosecutrix, who has filed this application for

quashing Crime No.19/2018. In this petition the State and

the prosecutrix have been impleaded as respondent nos.1

and 2.

9. Proposed intervenor Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha

has filed this application to intervene in the present case.

This application has been vehemently opposed by the

applicant Uma Uikey mother of the prosecutrix stating that

the proposed intervenor has no locus standi in the present

case, therefore, this application be dismissed.

10. On behalf of the State, it is contended that name

of Jai Shankar @ Deepu Birha is reflected in the FIR and the

conspiracy was hatched out allegedly to implicate Jai

Shankar @ Deepu Birha; therefore, Jai Shankar @ Deepu

Birha may be heard in this case.

11. On behalf of the intervenor, it is claimed that

intervenor is the “aggrieved person” in the present case,

therefore, the applicant be permitted to intervene in the


12. The circumstances in the present case indicate

that the interest of the applicant/proposed intervenor will

adversely affect, if he is not allowed to participate in the

proceeding. It is necessary to allow his participation,

because he is the affected party. In the criminal justice

delivery mechanism, the complainant should be allowed to

participate in the proceeding, otherwise, it will be travesty

of justice.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

14. It is clear that the proposed intervenor is the

affected party and it may be true that the proposed

intervenor according to the FIR is the victim. The State may

or may not be affected but the victim definitely is. Since the

victim was directly and substantially affected, he should be

allowed to participate in the instant case.

15. The issue needs to be addressed is that whether

it makes sense to allow the third party to participate in the

proceeding ?

16. In the opinion of this Court, since the aim of

criminal law is to punish the culprit and if not found guilty to

acquit the accused. It would be appropriate for the better

adjudication of the case, the proposed intervenor be

allowed to intervene. The Court can examine the intention

of the applicant seeking to intervene and he is bonafide as

is clearly evident from perusal of the prosecution stories. It

seems that the rights guaranteed under the constitution

which are enforciable using public interest litigation as a

tool, why then the person affected by the decision could not

be allowed to participate in the proceeding ?

17. In the case of P.S.R. Sadhantham vs.

Arunachalam and another, reported in 1980 SCC

(Criminal) 649, Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for

himself and Justice Fazal Ali and Justice D.A. Desai

examining the scope of Article 136 vis-à-vis Article 21, said


“Article 21, in its sublime brevity, guardians
human liberty by insisting on the prescription of
procedure established by law, not fiat as sine qua
non for deprivation of personal freedom. And
those procedures so established must be fair, not
fanciful, nor formal nor flimsy, as laid down in
Maneka Gandhi’s case. So, it is axiomatic that our
constitutional jurisprudence mandates the State
not to deprive a person of his personal liberty
without adherence to fair procedure laid down by
law. The question is whether there is any
procedure, fair or otherwise, which enables a
kindly neighbour who is not a complainant or first
informant, to appeal to the Supreme Court
against an allegedly erroneous acquittal by the
High Court. The corpus juris contains no black-
letter law arming any such purely compassionate
soul to approach this Court, argues Sri Mridul;


and so, his client’s liberty has been deprived by a
proceeding initiated by someone without any
procedure established by law. We see the
dexterity in the advocacy but reject its efficacy.
Nor are we impressed with the submission that
the brother of the deceased in the case, or any
other high-minded citizen, is an officious meddler
who has no business nor grievance when the
commission of grievous crime is going
unpunished. There is a spiritual sensitivity for our
criminal justice system which approves of the
view that a wrong done to anyone is a wrong
done to oneself, although for pragmatic
considerations the law leashes the right to initiate
proceedings in some situations. Again, ‘justice is
functionally outraged not only when an innocent
person is punished but also when a guilty criminal
gets away with it stultifying the legal system. The
deep concern of the law is to track down, try and
punish the culprit, and if found not guilty, to
acquit the accused.”

18. In a recent judgment delivered by the Apex

Court, namely Dhariwal Industry Ltd. vs. Kishore

Wadhwani and others (2016) 10 SCC 378, wherein the

complainant was allowed to file an application under Section

302 of the Cr.P.C. to grant permission to conduct the

prosecution independently. At paragraph 13 of the Apex

Court has observed that:-

“13. Having carefully perused both the
decisions, we do not perceive any kind of
anomaly either in the analysis or ultimate
conclusion arrived by the Court. We may note
with profit that in Shiv Kumar (supra), the Court
was dealing with the ambit and sweep of
Section 301 CrPC and in that context observed
that Section 302 CrPC is intended only for the
Magistrate’s Court. In J.K. International (supra)
from the passage we have quoted hereinbefore

it is evident that the Court has expressed the
view that a private person can be permitted to
conduct the prosecution in the Magistrate’s
Court and can engage a counsel to do the
needful on his behalf. The further observation
therein is that when permission is sought to
conduct the prosecution by a private person, it
is open to the court to consider his request. The
Court has proceeded to state that the Court has
to form an opinion that cause of justice would
be best subserved and it is better to grant such
permission. And, it would generally grant such
permission. Thus, there is no cleavage of

19. Though, the present is not a criminal trial but is

the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing of

the FIR, but for the decision of the case it can be

considered. As there is no provision under the Cr.P.C. for

granting permission to the intervenor, but Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. gives ample power to the Court to permit the

complainant to participate in the proceeding to arrive at

better adjudication of the case. There is no provision for

quashing of FIR, but the powers can be exercised under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Similarly, the complainant or third

party may be permitted to participate to protect their

interest under the same provision; otherwise it will be a

mockery of justice.

20. The word “intervenor” is nowhere defined in the

Cr.P.C. but whenever participation of the complainant or

third party is raised, Sections 301 and 302 of Cr.P.C.

come into the mind. Under Section 301 of Cr.P.C. the

Advocate engaged by the private person with the

permission of the Court may be allowed to assist the

prosecution; whereas under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. the

private party is allowed to conduct the prosecution. The

Magistrate/Court while allowing the same consider the

aspect that whether cause of justice would be served better

in granting such permission.

21. In the Code of Federal Regulation of the United

State of America a provision has been made for the

“intervenor” and there is settled rules codified for the same.

A petition for intervention can be filed by a petitioner who

has statutory right to initiate the proceeding, in which he

wishes to intervene for a petitioner has an interest which is

or may be adversely affected by the outcome with the


22. In the Indian context in many cases, NGOs and

other private bodies, specially in the case of Public Interest

Litigations, large number of human organizations were

granted permission to intervene. In the case of J.R. Anand

vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported as ILR 1981

Delhi 877, wherein president of Delhi Pariwahan Majdoor

Sangh was allowed to intervene.


23. Therefore, the question posed by this Court is

answered in affirmative.

24. For the reasons stated above and for better

disposal of the case I.A. No.8088/2018 is allowed. The

applicant is allowed to participate in the case as an


(Sushil Kumar Palo)


Digitally signed by
Date: 2018.08.14 10:30:48

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation