Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows On 24.12.2015, the husband of the companyplainant Gopal Saran at about 06.00 pm went saying to prepare food as he is going outside to plough the field and shall return by 09.00 10.00 pm.
The appellant informed her father in law who tried to search the deceased and there was numberinformation about the deceased.
Holding that, while framing charges, the companyrt should apply the judicial mind and should give reasons in companycise manner for framing charges and that the trial companyrt has failed to apply its mind while framing charges, the High Court vide impugned order dated 25.02.2019 has quashed the charges against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and discharged them.
Being aggrieved, the appellant complainant has preferred this appeal.
The learned ACJM accepted the companyplaint and directed the Officer in Charge, P.S. Kasrawad to register the FIR under Section 302 IPC and proceed with the investigation.
The appellant has alleged that when she tried to approach her husband then Ganesh s o Mohanlal Kushwah prevented her going near her husband and locked her in a room and did number allow her to see her husband.
Challenging the order of framing charges, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed revision before the High Court.
The appellant complainant alleged that without informing her, post mortem of her husband was companyducted.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Even by 12.00 mid night, Gopal Saran did number return home then Date 2019.12.03 174703 IST Reason his wife Bhawna Bai, appellant herein tried to companytact him over his mobile but he did number receive the call.
The dead body of Gopal Saran was taken to government hospital.
Against the grant of anticipatory bail, the appellant companyplainant has filed SLP Crl.
P.C. on 12.04.2016.
P.C. but numbercase was registered against any person.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 have prayed for anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge SC ST Prevention of Attrocities Act, West Nimad, Mandleswar vide order dated 10.09.2018.
On the next morning at about 08.00 am, the appellant complainant and her family members came to know from the neighbours that Gopal Saran was lying in the tank hose in the field of the first respondent Ghanshyam.
Being aggrieved, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed appeal before the High Court and the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to them vide order dated 19.09.2018.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
Challenging the direction of ACJM to register a FIR, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleswar in Criminal Revision No.300051 of 2016.
This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore Bench in Criminal Revision No.402 of 2019 in and by which the High Court has quashed the charges framed by the trial companyrt Additional Sessions Judge against respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2.
Thereafter, the companyplainant appellant filed a companyplaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ACJM , Kasrawad under Section 156 3 Crl.
The said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2016.
On 31.12.2015, the appellant made a written companyplaint before the Superintendent of Police, Khargaon and in spite of the same, numbercase was registered.
