Madhya Pradesh High Court
Puneet Paliwal vs Wahid Khan on 4 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10242
1 MCRC-44605-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 4th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44605 of 2023
PUNEET PALIWAL
Versus
WAHID KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Maneesh Kholia - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing
of the order dated 17-11-2022 (Annexure-A/1) by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bairasiya District Bhopal by which cognizance has been
taken against the petitioner and co-accused under sections 161 and 427
of the IPC. Further, assailing the order passed by the trial Court revision
filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the revisional Court
vide order dated 24-08-2023 (Annxure-A/2).
2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case,
the respondents filed a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC before
the trial Court claiming inter alia that they were residents of Village –
Lalariya Tehsil – Bairasiya District Bhopal. The
complainants/respondents had electricity connection which was given
for the agricultural purposes. The present petitioner was posted as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/7/2025
12:11:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10242
2 MCRC-44605-2023
Supervisor in the Electricity Board at the relevant time. He had the
reputation of demanding illicit gratification and in the event of non-
fulfillment of the same, he used to disconnect electricity connection of
the consumers. It was also alleged in the complaint that there was
demand of Rs.5000/- by the petitioner from the complainants and as the
said demand was not fulfilled, electricity supply of the complainants was
disconnected, as a result of which, the entire standing crops of the
complainants deteriorated. A loss was caused to the complainants to the
tune of Rs.5 Lakhs and subsequently Rs.7 Lakhs, as they could not
irrigate their agricultural lands.
3. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 17-11-2022 has
taken cognizance of the complaint and concluded that, there exists
several grounds to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 161 and
427 of IPC. Assailing the said order the present petition has been filed.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order
suffers from total non-application of mind, as the Court was required to
appreciate that Section 161 of the IPC was deleted from Statute Book by
way of an amendment in the year 1988. The counsel strenuously urged
that Section 161 was not in existence upon its repeal from the Statute
Book in the year 1988, yet the trial Court without applying its judicial
mind proceeded to frame the charges against the petitioner.
5. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, no
charge under Section 427 of IPC could have been framed, as none of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/7/2025
12:11:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10242
3 MCRC-44605-2023
ingredients of mischief, as defined in Section 425 of the IPC, was
available in the present case. It is contended by the counsel that the
present petitioner was an employee of the Electricity Board and he was
to discharge his official duties. There was outstanding of electricity bills
against the respondents, yet instead of making payment of the
outstanding bill, they evolved a method to unnecessary pressurize the
present petitioner and filed the complaint.
6. Thus, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order being sans substance, deserves to be set aside. It is contended by
the counsel that there was no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC,
and when the order dated 17-11-2022 was assailed before the revisional
Court, the revisional Court in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order
observed that since there was inaction on the part of the Electricity Board
in not taking cognizance of the grievance of the
complainants/respondents for a period of three months, there was no
irregularity in taking cognizance of the complaint by the trial
Magistrate.
7. It is vehemently argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the
Courts were required to appreciate, that it was a case where on account
of non-payment of electricity bill, consequential action of disconnecting
electricity supply was taken by the Electricity Board. The present
petitioner being an employee of the Electricity Board acted as per the
directives in official discharge of his duties. It is contended by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/7/2025
12:11:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10242
4 MCRC-44605-2023
counsel that there are notices on record, filed at page No.58 and 59 of the
petition, which reveal that the same were issued to the complainants for
disconnection of their electricity supply. To buttress his submission, the
counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of D.
Devraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695 and A.
Srinavasulu vs. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 900.
8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer
and submitted that the present petition has no substance and deserves to
be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that the present petitioner
misused his official position while demanding the illicit gratification
from the complainants/respondents. It is also contended that at the stage
of taking cognizance and summoning witnesses, the trial Magistrate is
only required to apply his judicial mind to take cognizance of the
offence. He cannot take into consideration any other material which is
not available on record. It is required to be produced by defence. It is
strenuously argued by the counsel that at this stage of taking cognizance,
defence of the accused is not to be taken note of. Reliance is placed on
the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sonu Gupta vs.
Deepak Gupta and others, (2015) 3 SCC 424.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, perusal of the records reflects that the trial Court has taken
cognizance of the complaint and concluded that there are sufficient
grounds to proceed in respect of the offence punishable under sections
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/7/2025
12:11:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10242
5 MCRC-44605-2023
161 and 427 of the IPC. The revisional Court has also declined to
interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Section 161 of the IPC
was repealed w.e.f. 09-09-1988 by the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (49 of 1988) Section 31. Therefore, prima facie , there could not
have been any cognizance under Section 161 of the IPC. Secondly, in
the present case, the order of the trial Court prima facie dos not indicate
consideration of grant of sanction for prosecution.
10. In the considered view of this Court, the trial Court was
required to bestow its anxious consideration as regards the issue – as to
whether any sanction was required in the present case or not ? Further,
it was prima facie required to take a view on the issue – as to whether the
act in question was performed by the present petitioner in official
discharge of his duties or not. Apparently, these issues have not been
dealt with by the trial Court, and even the revisional Court has also not
appreciated the fact that Section 161 of IPC was repealed by the above
referred Amendment.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view, that the trial
Court should take a decision afresh as regards taking cognizance of the
complaint filed by the respondents/complainants.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17-11-2022
(Annexure-A/1) passed by the trial Court and the order dated 24-08-2023
(Annexure-A/2) passed by revisional Court stand set aside. The matter
is remitted back to the trial Court to take a decision afresh, regarding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/7/2025
12:11:06 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10242
6 MCRC-44605-2023
taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the
respondents/complainants, in the light of the observations made
hereinabove.
13. It is made clear that, so far as merits of the case are concerned,
this Court has not expressed any opinion. The trial Court, in its own
wisdom, shall be at liberty to take a decision afresh in accordance with
law.
14. With the observation and directions, the present petition stands
disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 3/7/2025
12:11:06 PM
[ad_1]
Source link