Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1838 (RAJ)

Bhadai v. State of Rajasthan & 2 Ors.

2007-09-25

AJAY RASTOGI

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing order dated 16.06.93 whereby in view of protection provided U/s. 195(1)(d)(ii), Cr.P.C., Chief Judl. Magistrate, Dholpur discharged the accused (Dhlire, Khajan & Bahadur Singh) for offences U/ss. 467, 468, 420, 471 IPC. 2. Brief facts giving rise to instant petition are that disputed sale deed dated 15.12.90 was filed in revenue suit pending between the parties on 23.03.91 - taking note whereof certain interim orders were passed in pending revenue U/s. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.. 3. Petitioner filed a complaint inter-alia alleging that very sale deed placed on record in proceeding pending before Revenue Courts is a forged document and proper action against accused (supra) be taken for offences U/Ss. 467, 468, 420, 471 IPC. Objection was raised on behalf of the accused (supra) that in view of the bar provided U/s. 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. since document has already been taken on record and only the Court can initiate action against them and their objection was upheld by learned Magistrate vide order dated 16.06.93 and accordingly the accused were discharged of offences (supra)-against which complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 150/94 U/s. 397, Cr.P.C. before this Court but since it was incompetent being barred by limitation and this Court was not satisfied with explanation with regard to delay furnished for seeking condonation whereof U/s. 5 of Limitation Act, and application seeking condonation was dismissed-as a consequence whereof, revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 11.07.95. 4. After almost three years of dismissal of revision petition (supra), petitioner approached this Court by filing instant petition for invoking inherent powers U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. v 5. 4. After almost three years of dismissal of revision petition (supra), petitioner approached this Court by filing instant petition for invoking inherent powers U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. v 5. Main contention advanced by Counsel for petitioner is that since document alleged to have been forged & created by the accused was filed in pending proceedings before Revenue Courts; as such the bar provided U/s. 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. will not come in his way and what has been observed by learned trial Magistrate is erroneous and does not hold good in the light of judgment of Apex Court in Iqbal S. Marwah v. Meenakashi, (2005(2) Crimes (SC) 11 : AIR 2005 SC 2119 ) , wherein it has been observed that section 195(1)(b), (ii) Cr.P.C. will be attracted only when offence has been committed with respect to document after it has been produced or given in evidence in proceedings before the Court and since in instant case, document in question was subsequently produced in Court, this bar will not come in his way. 6. Counsel for respondents on the other hand submits that once revision petition assailing the same order impugned herein has been dismissed by this Court and if this recourse is permitted for assailing such an order in inherent jurisdiction U/s. 482 Cr.P.C., that will be nothing but abuse of process of Court particularly when co-ordinate Bench has dismissed revision petition filed against very order impugned herein. 7. This Court considered contentions of Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance perused material on record. It is true that scope of revision U/s. 397 Cr.P.C. and inherent powers U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be compared and this Court exercise of inherent powers can certainly interfere to secure ends of justice but this fact cannot be ruled that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in revisional jurisdiction examined the very order impugned herein and since revision petition was time barred and no satisfactory explanation of the delay has come forward, the same was dismissed. 8. This Court is of the opinion that once co-ordinate Bench has dismissed revision petition, it would not proper for this Court in exercise of inherent powers to examine this very order impugned herein; hence is not inclined to interfere therewith. 9. 8. This Court is of the opinion that once co-ordinate Bench has dismissed revision petition, it would not proper for this Court in exercise of inherent powers to examine this very order impugned herein; hence is not inclined to interfere therewith. 9. In view of judgment Iqbal S. Marwah v. Meenakshi (supra) on which Counsel has placed reliance, this Court, therefore) considers it proper to grant him liberty to make submission before trial Magistrate in regard to change in circumstance which stands settled by Apex Court in Iqbal Singh v. Meenakshi (supra) while examining scope of section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. in the light whereof, learned trial Magistrate will examine the matter in accordance with law. 10. The misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. The record be sent back forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur to proceed further in the light of what has been observed above.Petition Dismissed. *******