Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. (2). This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 30th August, 1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No. 629/82. By the aforesaid order the lear- ned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh directed that charge under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code be framed against all the three accused, namely, Krishan Gopal, Harjendra Singh and Manjeet Singh and an additional charge under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code be framed against Manjeet Singh and Harjendra Singh who used the registration certificate which they knew was a forged document. In this petition only Krishan Gopal has challenged the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Manjeet Singh and Harjendra Singh are not parties to this petition. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 15th October, 1982 issued process again- st three persons, namely, Bagh Singh, krishan Gopal and Chandra Bhan Sharma on the ground that prima facie case was made out against them under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. That order was challenged by Bagh Singh and Chandra Bhan Sharma before this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 32/85 filed by Chandra Bhan Sharma and Bagh Singh under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was alleged vide order dated 19th April, 1985 and the proceedings initiated against them were quashed on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process against the petitioners otherwise than under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (4). I have perused the order dated 19th April, 1985 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 32/85 filed by Shri Bagh Singh and Chandra Bhan Sharma. The learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 15th October, 1982 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process against the additional accused persons otherwise than under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (5). The learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 15th October, 1982 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process against the additional accused persons otherwise than under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (5). In this petition it would not be proper for this Court to take any other view then the view which was taken by the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 19th April, 1985. by the aforesaid order it was held that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process against the additional accused persons. It means that the order dated 15th October, 1982 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was held to be without any jurisdiction. In this view of the matter the proceedings against the petitioner Krishan Gopal are incompetant in law and they cannot be allowed to proceed further. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 32/85 Krishan Gopal was not a party and, therefore, the order dated 19th April, 1985 passed by this Court does not in any manner entitle Krishan Gopal to get the proceedings against him quashed. In my humble opinion, this argument has no force. Once this High Court has held that learned chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process against the additional accused persons otherwise than under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the entire order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate becomes ineffective. Where there is lack of jurisdiction and a competent Court has declared that there was such inherent lack of jurisdiction, in a case of this kind the argument that since Krishan Gopal was not a party to the earlier proceedings and, therefore, proceedings against him cannot be quashed, cannot be allowed to prevail. In this case having regard to the facts and circumstances it appears to be just and proper to quash the proceedings which were initiated against Krishan Gopal by issuing process against him on 15th October, 1982. (6). For reasons mentioned above the petition suceeds. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner Krishan Gopal by issue of process against him on 15th October,1982 are hereby quashed. (6). For reasons mentioned above the petition suceeds. Proceedings initiated against the petitioner Krishan Gopal by issue of process against him on 15th October,1982 are hereby quashed. This order will not prevent the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate from passing an appropriate order against the additional accused persons including Krishan Gopal under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the facts and circumstances of the case at the time of passing of the order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code justify such a course. The petition is disposed of accordingly.