Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/10092/2015 of SMT. ANARKALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10092 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SMT. ANARKALI W/O UTTAM BACHHADA, AGEDABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR DODIYAMEENA, TEH. MALHARGARH, DISTT. MANDSAUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VISHAL PATIDAR- ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THRU. P.S. MANASA, DISTT. NEEMUCH(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This petition coming on for order this day, th e court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the Court below forrecovery of the amount which was directed to be deposited by her husband andhas also prayed for refund of the amount which has already been deposited byher.
2. The record indicates that by judgment dated 15.05.2009 passed inCr.A. No.48 of 2001 which was preferred against the judgment dated29.12.2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch in S.T. No.220/1991, the appellants including appellant No.7 therein Uttam wasdirected to deposit a further sum of Rs.5,000/- within a period of two months'and further directions were issued for payment of the amount to be depositedby appellants to the complainants. In compliance of the said judgment,petitioner who is widow of Uttam has deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- before therevenue authority which has instituted proceedings for recovery of the saidamount.
3. From the document brought on record as Annexure P/2 it is evidentthat Uttam who was appellant No.7 in the appeal had expired on 04.11.2008 i.e.much prior to the date of passing of the judgment in Cr.A. No.48 of 2001 . Thesaid fact was not brought to the knowledge of this Court at the time of passingof the judgment.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that he had already expired theconsequence of which was that the proceedings against him stood abated.Thus, the judgment dated 15.05.2009 passed in Cr.A. No.48 of 2001 was inignorance of the fact of death of Uttam and would be a nullity in so far as he isconcerned. Consequently, the direction for him to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-before the Court also is not enforceable either against him or his legalrepresentative. The petitioner who is widow of Uttam has already deposited asum of Rs.5000/- in compliance of the judgment. Since the direction therein wasnot enforceable against Uttam there was no necessity for the petitioner to havedeposited the said amount. The recovery of a sum of Rs.50/- per day which isbeing made from the petitioner in compliance of the aforesaid judgment is alsonot enforceable against her.
5. Thus, in the available facts of the case, the petition deserves to be andis accordingly allowed. It is held that the petitioner is not liable for payment of any amount as per the direction of this Court in Cr.A. No.48 of 2001 decidedon 15.05.2009. The amount already deposited by the petitioner be refunded toher.
jyoti
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE