MUKUL MATHUR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition preferred u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C . is directed against the order dated 22.2.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Indore in Cr. Revision No.2/2017, whereby the learned revisional Court declined to interfere with order dated 19.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Cr. Case No.35120/2016 framing a charge against the petitioner u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) The petitioner has been prosecuted for offences u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. As per prosecution, on 23.7.2016, Priyanka Mathur - the wife of the present petitioner, lodged first information report with Police Station Tukoganj, Indore that she has received a mobile call from the mobile number of her husband demanding Rs.25.00 Lakhs as ransom for her husband who had come to Indore for some personal work. The person demanding ransom of Rs.25.00 Lakhs informed that petitioner - Mukul has been kidnapped and he is in their control. As per prosecution, Priyanka Mathur further informed that when she called back her husband - the petitioner on his mobile phone, then he informed that he has been kidnapped. Around 9 pm., another phone call was received by Priyanka Mathur from her husband informing that the unknown persons are taking him towards Kota (Rajasthan). In between, some one also inquired about arrangement of ransom money. The Police investigated the matter and found that the petitioner was not, as a matter of fact, kidnapped, rather he himself in conspiracy with some other persons, hatched a plan to falsely inform his wife and brother-in-law that he has been kidnapped and thus, persuaded them to part away with Rs.25.00 Lakhs as ransom money. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

(3.) The petitioner pleaded before the learned trial Court that he himself is the aggrieved person as he was kidnapped by some unknown persons, therefore, a charge u/s. 387 read with Section 120-B of the IPC cannot be framed against him. The plea did not find favour with the learned Magistrate and the revision preferred against the order passed by the learned Magistrate also came to be dismissed by the impugned order, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C .