Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deva Alias Rahul Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
1 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23156 of 2023
DEVA ALIAS RAHUL GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajmani Bansal - Advocate for applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Kumar Jha- Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No. 530 of 2019 registered at Police Station
Bahodapur, District Gwalior for offences under Section 366 of IPC, Section
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, and Sections 365, 364, 302, 201, and 376 of the IPC, which
were added at a later stage.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
2 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
2. In this application, it has not been disclosed by the applicant that earlier
he had filed two applications under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of
proceedings and both the cases were withdrawn. M.Cr.C. No.34672/2020 was
filed on 14/09/2020 under section 482 of Cr.P.C. which was withdrawn on
25/1/2022. Thereafter, another application (M.Cr.C. No. 39372/2021) was also
filed on 4/8/2021 which was also withdrawn on 25/1/2022. Thus, it is clear that
earlier also during pendency of first application under section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
applicant had filed another application and both the applications were
withdrawn. In the present application, it has not been disclosed as to whether
this is first application or repeat application. The factum of rejection of M.Cr.C.
Nos.34672/2020 and 39372/2021 has not been disclosed. Since this Court was
transferred to Principal Seat at Jabalpur, therefore, this application was listed
before co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
3. It is not out of place to mention here that this application under Section
482 of Cr.P.C was filed on 29.05.2023, and after 2 days of filing of the
application i.e. on 1.06.2023, a coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the
application and quashed the proceedings even without issuing notice to the
complainant and without awaiting response from the State. Accordingly, the
State of Madhya Pradesh filed Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 2025, which has
been allowed by the Supreme Court by order dated 21st January 2025, and the
matter has been remanded back with a direction to the High Court to hear all the
parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order. It has also been directed that the
High Court shall also keep in mind that on earlier occasion, an application for
quashment of FIR and consequential criminal proceedings was withdrawn, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
3 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
it has also been directed by the Supreme Court that the effect of withdrawal or
dismissal of the earlier application, shall also be taken into consideration.
4. Shri Rajmani Bansal, Advocate, who had appeared on 1.06.2023 before
the coordinate Bench of this Court and argued the matter, submitted that he may
be permitted to withdraw MCRC No. 23156 of 2023. In view of the fact that
coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed and quashed the proceedings within
two days and that too without issuing any notice to the complainant, as well as
in the light of directions given by the Supreme Court, this Court refused to
allow the applicant to withdraw this application.
5. Faced with such a situation, Shri Bansal submitted that he has no
instructions in the matter.
6. Considered the submissions made by Shri Rajmani Bansal with regard to
no instructions.
7. If Shri Rajmani Bansal had no instructions, then he should not have
prayed for withdrawal of the application. But the moment the case was called up
and he stood up and prayed for withdrawal, that means he had full instructions
but now he does not wish to face the adverse situation which was created by
himself by obtaining an order of quashment as well as by suppressing the
material fact of withdrawal of a similar application on earlier occasion.
8. Be that whatever it may be.
9. If counsel for applicant is not interested in arguing the matter, then this
Court would like to decide this application on its own merits by rejecting the
prayer to withdraw this application.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
4 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
10. According to prosecution case, one Gum Insan report was lodged by
complainant “A” on 26/5/2019 alleging that her sister “B” was living with the
applicant for the last 4 years. “B” has left her room and her whereabouts are not
known. The mobile number of “B” was mentioned in the Gum Insan report. It
was also mentioned that she has enquired from the husband of “B” i.e.
Applicant who has expressed ignorance about whereabouts of “B”.
11. On 09.05.2019, an FIR was lodged by complainant Jaswant Yadav at
Police Station Kotwali, Datia, stating that he is a resident of Housing Board
Colony. In the morning, he found that the dead body of one lady is lying behind
the colony in a burnt condition. The face of the dead body was also burnt, and it
was stated that some unknown person had killed the lady by causing injuries on
her head. In order to hide her identity, her face had been burnt. Accordingly, on
the report lodged by Jaswant, Police Station Kotwali, District Datia, registered
FIR in Crime No. 246 of 2019. Later, on 6/10/2019, complainant, her mother,
sister and brother were called in Police Station Bahodapur and they were shown
the photograph of dead body of an unknown lady which was found in the
territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali, Datia. From the photograph,
clothes and slippers etc., dead body was identified to be that of “B”.The FIR
registered at P.S.Kotwali, Datia was transferred to P.S.Bahodapur, District
Gwalior.
12. The postmortem of the dead body was got done. In the postmortem
report, head injury was found, and in the opinion of the doctor, cause of death
was shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury. The injury was caused by
hard and blunt object and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. The injury was antemortem and the burns were postmortem in nature.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
5 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
13. The incriminating body parts of deceased were preserved. Blood sample
of the applicant was collected while he was lodged in jail. The DNA profile of
the stains found on the clothes of the deceased was found to be of applicant. The
stroll which was seized from the spot was found to contain the DNA profile of
applicant. However, the vaginal smear was found to be containing very low,
uninterpretable male Y-STR DNA profile. It was also found that the deceased
and complainant are biological relatives, whereas deceased was the biological
mother of the foetus, and the applicant was not the biological father of the
foetus. The CDR of mobile numbers and tower locations were also collected.
The police, after completing investigation, filed the charge sheet.
14. On 18.08.2019, the statement of applicant was recorded under Section 27
of the Evidence Act. He informed that “B” was living with him in the capacity
of his wife in a house situated in Bhuteshwar Colony, Gwalior, and now he has
kept her in the house of one S.K. Singh (Christain), resident of Jhansi, who is
residing near Water Head Tank, Khati Baba, Isai Tola, in the house of Samsun
Isai.
15. Smt. Anita Yagnik, who is the landlord of the house in which “B” was
residing, has also stated that on 08.05.2019, “B” had gone along with the
applicant and thereafter she did not return. On 15.05.2019, applicant came back,
and while he was opening the lock of the door, she enquired as to why “B” has
not come. Then it was replied by the applicant that “B” has gone to the house of
her Bua, and thereafter he left.
16. The statement of Suraj Singh was also recorded, who has stated that he is
running a clinic in the name of Padma Clinic situated in Rampuri Mohalla,
Shabd Pratap Ashram, Gwalior. He stated that on the recommendation of “A,”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
6 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
he had kept “B” in his clinic on a monthly salary of Rupees 1,000 for mopping
and dusting purposes. It is stated that “B” worked for about one year in the
clinic, and thereafter she left the job in the month of January 2019 on the ground
that she had conceived. In the month of April 2019, “B” had come along with
“A” to his clinic to show the report of ultrasound. After looking at the
ultrasound report as well as medical prescriptions written by Dr. Beena Bansal,
he informed that “B” is carrying a pregnancy of 3 months. Later on, “A”
informed him that her sister “B” is missing since 08.05.2019.
17. Charges were also framed by trial Court by order dated 6/12/2019.
18. From the evidence which has been collected by the police, it is clear that
the coordinate Bench of this Court had wrongly held that the case is based on
confessional statement of accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. In fact, the case is based on circumstantial evidence of: (i) last seen
together; (ii) that applicant was residing with deceased as husband and wife in a
rented house, whereas applicant was already married and was having children;
(iii) On the fateful day, both of them left their rented house, and thereafter the
deceased “B” was not seen alive; (iv) The stains found on the clothes of the
deceased were found to be containing DNA profile of applicant and (v) DNA
profile on the stroll recovered from the spot where the dead body of deceased
was found to be containing DNA profile of applicant.
19. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that there is prima facie material
warranting prosecution of the applicant. Even otherwise, it is a well-established
principle of law that if an application is filed for quashment of proceedings, then
complainant has to be heard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
7 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
20. In the present case, although the complainant was arrayed as respondent
No.2, but no notice was issued to her. The Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537 has held
as under:-
4. Now, when the report forwarded by the officer-in-charge of a police
station to the Magistrate under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 comes
up for consideration by the Magistrate, one of two different situations
may arise. The report may conclude that an offence appears to have
been committed by a particular person or persons and in such a case,
the Magistrate may do one of three things: (1) he may accept the report
and take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (2) he may
disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (3) he may direct
further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require
the police to make a further report. The report may on the other hand
state that, in the opinion of the police, no offence appears to have been
committed and where such a report has been made, the Magistrate
again has an option to adopt one of three courses: (1) he may accept the
report and drop the proceeding or (2) he may disagree with the report
and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (3) he may
direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section
(3) of Section 156. Where, in either of these two situations, the
Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence and to issue
process, the informant is not prejudicially affected nor is the injured or
in case of death, any relative of the deceased aggrieved, because
cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate and it is decided
by the Magistrate that the case shall proceed. But if the Magistrate
decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and
drops the proceeding or takes the view that though there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against some, there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against others mentioned in the first information report, the
informant would certainly be prejudiced because the first information
report lodged by him would have failed of its purpose, wholly or in
part. Moreover, when the interest of the informant in prompt and
effective action being taken on the first information report lodged by
him is clearly recognised by the provisions contained in sub-section (2)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:79368 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
of Section 154, sub-section (2) of Section 157 and sub-section (2)(ii) of
Section 173, it must be presumed that the informant would equally be
interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence
and issues process, because that would be culmination of the first
information report lodged by him. There can. therefore, be no doubt
that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer-in-
charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173, the
Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue
process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so
that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take
cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the
view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded
under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance
of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons
mentioned in the first information report, the Magistrate must give
notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at
the time of consideration of the report. It was urged before us on behalf
of the respondents that if in such a case notice is required to be given to
the informant, it might result in unnecessary delay on account of the
difficulty of effecting service of the notice on the informant. But we do
not think this can be regarded as a valid objection against the view we
are taking, because in any case the action taken by the police on the
first information report has to be communicated to the informant and a
copy of the report has to be supplied to him under sub-section (2)(i) of
Section 173 and if that be so, we do not see any reason why it should be
difficult to serve notice of the consideration of the report on the
informant. Moreover, in any event, the difficulty of service of notice on
the informant cannot possibly provide any justification for depriving
the informant of the opportunity of being heard at the time when the
report is considered by the Magistrate.
5. The position may however, be a little different when we consider the
question whether the injured person or a relative of the deceased, who
is not the informant, is entitled to notice when the report comes up for
consideration by the Magistrate. We cannot spell out either from the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or from the
principles of natural justice, any obligation on the Magistrate to issue
notice to the injured person or to a relative of the deceased for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
9 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
providing such person an opportunity to be heard at the time of
consideration of the report, unless such person is the informant who has
lodged the first information report. But even if such person is not
entitled to notice from the Magistrate, he can appear before the
Magistrate and make his submissions when the report is considered by
the Magistrate for the purpose of deciding what action he should take
on the report. The injured person or any relative of the deceased,
though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear
before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he
otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be considered by
the Magistrate and if he wants to make his submissions in regard to the
report, the Magistrate is bound to hear him. We may also observe that
even though the Magistrate is not bound to give notice of the hearing
fixed for consideration of the report to the injured person or to any
relative of the deceased, he may, in the exercise of his discretion, if he
so thinks fit, give such notice to the injured person or to any particular
relative or relatives of the deceased, but not giving of such notice will
not have any invalidating effect on the order which may be made by the
Magistrate on a consideration of the report.
21. The Supreme Court in the case of J.K. International v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) reported in (2001) 3 SCC 462 has held as under:-
13. We may now proceed to point out the usefulness of the
observations made by the three-Judge Bench in Bhagwant
Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267] .
Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) who spoke for the Bench pointed out
that the informant having taken the initiative in lodging the first
information report, with a view to initiate investigation by the police,
for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence has been
committed (if so by whom) is vitally interested in the result of the
investigation and hence the law requires that the action taken by the
officer in charge of the police station on such FIR should be
communicated to him. The Bench said this with reference to Section
173(2)(i) of the Code.
14. This Court further said in the decision that if the Magistrate finds
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further the informant
would certainly be prejudiced because the FIR was lodged by him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
10 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
After adverting to different clauses of Section 173 of the Code learned
Judges laid down the legal proposition in para 5 of the said judgment.
The law so laid down is that though there is no obligation on the
Magistrate to issue notice to the injured person or to a relative of the
deceased in order to provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time
of consideration of the final report of the police (except when the final
report is to the effect that no offence had been made out in the case),
the informant who lodged the FIR is entitled to a notice from the
Magistrate. In other instances, the injured or any relative of the
accused can appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration
of the police report if such person otherwise comes to know that the
Magistrate is going to consider the report. If such person appears
before the Magistrate it is the duty of the Magistrate to hear him. It is
profitable to extract the relevant portion of that ratio: (SCC p. 543,
para 5)
“The injured person or any relative of the deceased, though
not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear
before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report,
if he otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be
considered by the Magistrate and if he wants to make his
submissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound to
hear him. We may also observe that even though the
Magistrate is not bound to give notice of the hearing fixed for
consideration of the report to the injured person or to any
relative of the deceased, he may, in the exercise of his
discretion, if he so thinks fit, give such notice to the injured
person or to any particular relative or relatives of the deceased,
but not giving of such notice will not have any invalidating
effect on the order which may be made by the Magistrate on a
consideration of the report.”
15. In the above view of the matter learned Single Judge has done
wrong to the appellant when he closed the door of the High Court
before him by saying that the High Court is going to consider whether
the criminal proceedings initiated at his behest should be quashed
completely and that the complainant would not be heard at all even if
he wants to be heard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
11 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
22. The Supreme Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra,
(2022) 9 SCC 321 has held as under:-
A. Victim’s right to be heard
15. Until recently, criminal law had been viewed on a dimensional
plane wherein the courts were required to adjudicate between the
accused and the State. The “victim”–the de facto sufferer of a crime
had no participation in the adjudicatory process and was made to sit
outside the Court as a mute spectator. However, with the recognition
that the ethos of criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish
“crime” had surreptitiously turned its back on the “victim”, the
jurisprudence with respect to the rights of victims to be heard and to
participate in criminal proceedings began to positively evolve.
16. Internationally, the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice
for the Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, which was
adopted vide the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 40/34,
was a landmark in boosting the pro-victim movement. The Declaration
defined a “victim” as someone who has suffered harm, physical or
mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss, impairment of
fundamental rights through acts or omissions that are in violation of
criminal laws operative within a State, regardless of whether the
perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted, and
regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the
“victim”. Other international bodies, such as the European Union, also
took great strides in granting and protecting the rights of “victims”
through various covenants [ The position of a victim in the framework
of Criminal Law and Procedure, Council of Europe Committee of
Ministers to Member States, 1985; Strengthening victim’s right in the
EU communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Reasons, European Union, 2011; Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing “Minimum
Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime,
European Union, 2011.] .
17. Amongst other nations, the United States of America had also
made two enactments on the subject i.e. (i) The Victims of Crime Act,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
12 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
1984 under which legal assistance is granted to the crime-victims; and
(ii) The “victims” Rights and Restitution Act of 1990. This was
followed by meaningful amendments, repeal and insertion of new
provisions in both the statutes through an Act passed by the House of
Representatives as well as the Senate. In Australia, the legislature has
enacted South Australia Victims of Crime Act, 2001. While in Canada
there is the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Most of these legislations
have defined the “victim” of a crime liberally and have conferred
varied rights on such victims.
18. On the domestic front, recent amendments to the CrPC have
recognised a victim’s rights in the Indian criminal justice system. The
genesis of such rights lies in the 154th Report of the Law Commission
of India, wherein, radical recommendations on the aspect of
compensatory justice to a victim under a compensation scheme were
made. Thereafter, a Committee on the Reforms of Criminal Justice
System in its Report in 2003, suggested ways and means to develop a
cohesive system in which all parts are to work in coordination to
achieve the common goal of restoring the lost confidence of the people
in the criminal justice system. The Committee recommended the rights
of the victim or his/her legal representative “to be impleaded as a
party in every criminal proceeding where the charges are punishable
with seven years’ imprisonment or more”.
19. It was further recommended that the victim be armed with a right
to be represented by an advocate of his/her choice, and if he/she is not
in a position to afford the same, to provide an advocate at the State’s
expense. The victim’s right to participate in criminal trial and his/her
right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or
to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings,
including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly
recognised by the Committee. Repeated judicial intervention, coupled
with the recommendations made from time to time as briefly noticed
above, prompted Parliament to bring into force the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which not only inserted the
definition of a “victim” under Section 2(wa) but also statutorily
recognised various rights of such victims at different stages of trial.
20. It is pertinent to mention that the legislature has thoughtfully
given a wide and expansive meaning to the expression “victim” which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
13 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
“means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason
of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged
and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal
heir”.
21. This Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of
Karnataka [Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC
752, paras 3 and 8 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 801] , while dealing with
questions regarding a victim’s right to file an appeal under Section
372CrPC, observed that there was need to give adequate
representation to victims in criminal proceedings. The Court therein
affirmed the victim’s right to file an appeal against an order of
acquittal. In Mallikarjun Kodagali [Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of
Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, paras 3 and 8 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri)
801] , though the Court was primarily concerned with a different legal
issue, it will be fruitful in the present context to take note of some of
the observations made therein : (SCC pp. 760-61, paras 3 and 8)
“3. What follows in a trial is often secondary victimisation
through repeated appearances in court in a hostile or a semi-
hostile environment in the courtroom. Till sometime back,
secondary victimisation was in the form of aggressive and
intimidating cross-examination, but a more humane
interpretation of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 has
made the trial a little less uncomfortable for the victim of an
offence, particularly the victim of a sexual crime. In this regard,
the judiciary has been proactive in ensuring that the rights of
victims are addressed, but a lot more needs to be done. Today,
the rights of an accused far outweigh the rights of the victim of
an offence in many respects. There needs to be some balancing
of the concerns and equalising their rights so that the criminal
proceedings are fair to both. [Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI,
(2017) 14 SCC 809 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 202] …
***
8. The rights of victims, and indeed victimology, is an evolving
jurisprudence and it is more than appropriate to move forward
in a positive direction, rather than stand still or worse, take a
step backward. A voice has been given to victims of crime by
Parliament and the judiciary and that voice needs to be heard,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
14 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
and if not already heard, it needs to be raised to a higher decibel
so that it is clearly heard.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. It cannot be gainsaid that the rights of a victim under the amended
CrPC are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human
rights. The victim’s right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed
restrictively like a brutum fulmen [Ed. : The literal translation from the
Latin approximates to “meaningless thunderbolt or lightning”, and is
used to convey the idea of an “empty threat” or something which is
ineffective.] . We reiterate that these rights are totally independent,
incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State
under the CrPC. The presence of “State” in the proceedings, therefore,
does not tantamount to according a hearing to a “victim” of the crime.
23. A “victim” within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await
the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in
the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every
step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a “victim” has unbridled
participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination
of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify
that “victim” and “complainant/informant” are two distinct
connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that
the complainant/informant is also a “victim”, for even a stranger to the
act of crime can be an “informant”, and similarly, a “victim” need not
be the complainant or informant of a felony.
24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain
statutory provisions, such as those present in the Special Acts like the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of
granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that:
24.1.First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby,
the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous
crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2.Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to
participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an
opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal
against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:793615 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave
miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be
sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially
when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a
court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.
25. Adverting to the case at hand, we are constrained to express our
disappointment with the manner in which the High Court has failed to
acknowledge the right of the victims. It is worth mentioning that, the
complainant in FIR No. 219 of 2021, as well as the present appellants,
are close relatives of the farmers who have lost their lives in the
incident dated 3-10-2021. The specific stance taken by the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants that the counsel for the “victim” had
got disconnected from the online proceedings and could not make
effective submissions before the High Court has not been controverted
by the respondents. Thereafter, an application seeking a rehearing on
the ground that the “victim” could not participate in the proceedings
was also moved but it appears that the same was not considered by the
High Court while granting bail to the respondent-accused.
23. However, in the present case, proceedings were quashed just after two
days of filing of the application under Section 482 of CrPC. The application
under Section 482 of CrPC was filed on 29.05.2023, and the proceedings were
quashed on 1.06.2023, and that too without issuing any notice to the
complainant or the State. From the order dated 1.06.2023, it is clear that even
Shri Pramod Pachouri, State counsel had conceded to the incorrect statement
made by counsel for applicant that the case is based on the solitary ground of
confessional statement made by applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
What was the reason for the State counsel to make a concessional statement is
best known to the State counsel only. It is not out of place to mention here that
copy of chargesheet was filed along with application under section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
24. Be that whatever it may be.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
16 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
25. The only thing which can be said is that the manner in which the case was
argued and the manner in which the case has been decided speaks in volumes.
Be that whatever it may be. Once this Court has come to the conclusion that
there is material evidence against applicant of staying together as husband and
wife, last seen together, and thereafter the deceased was never seen alive, close
proximity of time i.e. 8/5/09 when “B” went missing and dead body was
recovered on 9/5/09, the presence of DNA profile in the stains found on the
clothes of deceased, presence of DNA profile on the stroll recovered from the
spot, it is clear that there is sufficient material to prosecute the applicant.
26. As already pointed out, applicant has not disclosed that this is repeat
application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. First two applications, which were
filed by applicant on 14/09/2020 and 4/8/2021 for quashment of proceedings
were registered as M.Cr.C. No.34672/2020 and M.Cr.C. No.39372/2021
respectively and were withdrawn on 25/1/2022. However, without any change
in circumstances, this application has been filed and that too without disclosing
the factum of withdrawal of first two applications. Therefore, this repeat
application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. without any change in circumstanes, is
also not otherwise maintainable.
27. Immediately after the prosecution was quashed, applicant was discharged
from all the charges. Accordingly, applicant is directed to immediately
surrender before the trial court latest by 30.04.2025, failing which the trial
Court shall issue warrant of arrest against the applicant for ensuring his
presence.
28. With aforesaid observations, the application fails and is hereby dismissed
with cost of Rs. 1 lac to be deposited by applicant in the Registry of this Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7936
17 M.Cr.C.No. 23156 of 2023
within a period of one month, failing which the Prinicpal Registrar shall not
only initiate proceedings for recovery of cost but shall also register a case for
contempt of Court. The cost has been imposed for suppression of material fact
of dismissal of earlier two petitions for similar relief.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
07:52:10 PM