Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3244 (RAJ)

Shiv Dutt v. State

2006-12-18

HARBANS LAL

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition has been filed by complainant-petitioner Shiv Dutt under Section 482 Cr.PC. against the order dated 27.11.1997 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bayana Distt. Bharatpur dismissing Revision No. 67/1996 and maintaining order dated 30.4.1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Weir Distt. Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 251/1995 consigning the file to record in view of the order dated 8.4.1996 of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bayana. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that in the Civil Original Suit No. 16/1976 pending between the parties, Commissioner Shri Virendra Kumar Jain submitted a report in which the word "Band" was allegedly interpolated by accused non-petitioner No.2 which was witnessed by Babulal. The said civil suit was decided on 5.8.1992 and in pursuance of the directions given in the judgment, a report was sent to the S.H.O., Police Station Weir authorising him under Section 155(2) Cr.PC. to investigate into the matter, where-upon a report was submitted before the court to the effect that the offence under Section 466 I.P.C. was prima-facie made out against accused-non-petitioner No.2 Jagdish Prasad. The trial court took on 8.8.1995 cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused through bailable warrant. The accused-non-petitioner challenged the said order by way of a revision being No. 41/1995 before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bayana who vide his order dated 8.4.1996 allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 8.8.1995 taking cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 466 IPC on the ground that no cognizance could be taken against accused in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. without a complaint having been filed by the concerned court. After receipt of the said order with file, learned trial court vide its order dated 30.4.1996 consigned the file to record room without making any complaint in view of the observations of the, learned revisional court. The complainant-petitioner, therefore, filed Revision No. 67/1996 before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bayana calling in question the order dated 30.4.1996, but the said revision was dismissed vide impugned-order. Hence, this petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the entire record and the relevant orders. District & Sessions Judge, Bayana calling in question the order dated 30.4.1996, but the said revision was dismissed vide impugned-order. Hence, this petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the entire record and the relevant orders. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.PC., reads as under- "195(l). - No court shall take cognizance- (a) (i).. (ii).. (iii)... (b) (1) .... (b) (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under Section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or (b) (iii)........ except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. (2) to (4)............ 4. It is thus, obvious that no court can take cognizance of the offence described in Section 463 Cr.PC. against any accused person except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. 5. In the instant case, the offence under Section 466 I.P.C. is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document i.e. the report of the Commissioner produced in the court of learned Munsiff Weir in Civil Original Suit No. 16/1976. It is also a patent fact that no complaint in writing has been filed by the said court against the accused. The cognizance has been taken against the accused for offence under Section 466 I.P.C. on the basis of the report of the police submitted pursuant to the report lodged by the court and authorisation made under Section 155(2) Cr.RC. to investigate the matter. The learned revisional court allowed the revision against the said order taking cognizance and quashed the same in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The revisional court neither filed the complaint nor directed the concerned court to file a complaint against the accused-non-petitioner for the offence alleged against him. to investigate the matter. The learned revisional court allowed the revision against the said order taking cognizance and quashed the same in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The revisional court neither filed the complaint nor directed the concerned court to file a complaint against the accused-non-petitioner for the offence alleged against him. It is perhaps because of this that the said court consigned the file to record room in view of the order of the learned revisional court dated 8.4.1996 quashing the order of cognizance dated 8.8.1995. It is not in dispute that it was prima-facie found that accused Jagdish Prasad had interpolated the word "band" in the report of the Commissioner produced before the civil court in Original Civil Suit No. 16/1976 and Babulal had seen him doing so. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 8.4.1996 but challenged the order dated 30.4.1996 by way of revision vide which the file was consigned to record room without filing a complaint as per the observation of the revisional court. The revision was however, dismissed with the observation that the revisional court could not give direction to the subordinate court in its revisional jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter. This observation, in my view, is fallacious and untenable. The revisional court could have directed the subordinate court to either conduct an inquiry under the provisions of Section 340 Cr.PC. or to file a complaint against accused Jagdish Prasad for offence under Section 466 I.P.C. which was prima-facie disclosed against him in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction as the provisions of Section 398 Cr.P.C. are not attracted in the instant case. The order dated 27.11.1997 of the learned court below is, therefore, clearly unsustainable. The offence alleged being a serious offence because it pertains to administration of justice which should not be dealt with lightly. The object of the aforesaid provision is to provide a safeguard against irresponsible and reckless prosecutions by private individuals in respect of offences which relate to the administration of justice and contempt of lawful authority. The object of the section is to minimise the possibility of needless harassment of litigants by rash, baseless or vexatious prosecutions at the instance of their opponents but the dignity and prestige of courts of law must be upheld and vindicated. 6. The object of the section is to minimise the possibility of needless harassment of litigants by rash, baseless or vexatious prosecutions at the instance of their opponents but the dignity and prestige of courts of law must be upheld and vindicated. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the order of the' learned court below so far as it declines to direct the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Weir, District Bharatpur to make a complaint against accused Jagdish Prasad and the order dated 30.4.1996 vide which the said court consigned the file to record room without making complaint deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Consequently, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the order dated 27.11.1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana, District Bharatpur so far as it declines to direct the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Weir, District Bharatpur to make complaint and the order dated 30.4.1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Weir, District Bharatpur are quashed and set-aside. It Is directed that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Weir, District Bharatpur which passed the judgment dated 5.8.1992 shall make a complaint against accused Jagdish Prasad for offence under Section 466 I.P.C. before the competent court. 8. The record be sent back to the concerned courts forthwith.Petition Allowed As Per Above Direction. *******