JUDGMENT 1. - On 13.2.09 a co-ordinate Bench, while taking suo motu cognizance of the serious irregularities and grave situation at Amer Palace, Jaipur, issued notices to State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur, Secretary, Tourist Department, Government of ; Rajasthan, Archaeology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Superintendent, Amer Palace Trust as also the Amer Development Authority and had passed the following order: "Money and greed coupled with power create blindness, madness and the persons become totally insane and insensitive. When the Government and the public authorities indulge in such practice, a great havoc is created resulting in chaos all around. The episode and mishap that happened in Amer Palace, Jaipur yesterday is a glaring example of the same. Historic Pink City of Jaipur and specially Amer Fort Palace are on world tourist map. The beauty, grandeur and architecture of the Fort and the Palace attract thousands of tourists from all over the country and foreigners also. Religious sentiments of lacs of people not only of the city of Jaipur but other parts of the country are also attached to the famous Sheela Mata Temple situated in the same complex. The Amer palace not only have a historic value but a protected monument also. The entire complex has legally been declared so. The original structure, shape, colour and interior including outside landscaping in no case be tampered with except for the minor repair works. Even the restoration work can also be undertaken to a limited extent to restore back the original look and shape. Lot of restrictions are imposed on the tourists also while moving around the complex. Photography and video filming can also be allowed to a limited extent is notified areas. In the interest of protecting such historical monuments the authorities concerned are expected to take all necessary measures and follow the norms and rules strictly. But, it all requires dedication, attachment and will to perform their duties in right perspective. Unfortunately, not only the public but specially the concerned authorities have become blind, deaf and dumb in the glitter of money. In recent past, such historical protected monuments have become commercial source of income. The very basic structure, shape and original grandeur have been massively tampered with under the pretext of development where huge funds are pocketed by few persons who do not even have a basic knowledge of history and architecture. In recent past, such historical protected monuments have become commercial source of income. The very basic structure, shape and original grandeur have been massively tampered with under the pretext of development where huge funds are pocketed by few persons who do not even have a basic knowledge of history and architecture. The entire original land-scape of the main courtyard at the entrance of the Amer Fort, Palace and the Temple have been destroyed. The trees, fountains, flowerbeds covered by carved stone Jalees have been raised to the ground, may be, to allow construction of huge sets for film shootings as in the present case. Under the law, no such constructions, even temporary, can be allowed in protected monuments destroying and damaging the original basic shape and image of the monument which attracts thousands of tourists every year. The authorities not even have anticipated and visualised the unforeseen accidents and mishaps at such places of great importance while giving permission for not only constructing a huge set but shooting a commercial film with so called famous stars which has ultimately resulted in not only large scale damages to the building but serious injuries to large number of people because of total chaos and stampede." 2. As per the said order, a detailed report was sought in regard to giving permission for constructing a huge set and film shooting in the complex when otherwise there are restrictions on photography and video shooting in the complex by the tourists. The authorities were also directed to show cause as to why adequate compensation may not be recovered not only from the erring officers but from the Film Producer also for damages to the public property and injuries caused to the human beings. Further, the learned, Advocate-General was directed to accept notices on behalf of the authorities and to submit written reply within two weeks. It was also ordered that since great inconvenience has been caused to a large number of tourists and the devotees visiting the Palace and the Temple and mishap having happened due to total insensitive callous approach of the authorities concerned, the film shooting in the Amer Fort complex was directed to be stopped immediately.The said directions were to be informed to the authorities telephonically by the learned Advocate General, who was also to inform the Court about compliance by 12.00 noon on that day. The Court had also ordered that no further permission for film shooting be granted by the authorities in Amer Fort and Palace till necessary directions issued by it. The matter was ordered to be listed on 3rd March, 2009. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the case. The office was directed to register the matter as DB Misc. Writ Petition and to place the same before Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 3. The matter was then registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1826/09, Suo Moto v. State . Thereafter, an application for modification of the order dated 13.2.09 was filed by the Director of Vijay Galani Movies through its proprietor Vijay Galani and a reply to the same was filed by the amicus curiae appointed by the Court. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Division Bench presided by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on 18.2.09. The learned Division Bench passed the following orders : "Learned Division Bench of this Court taking suo moto cognizance noticing serious irregularities and grave situation committed in the preservation and maintenance of Amer Palace and the nature of the film shooting "Veer", issued notices to the State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Secretary, Tourist Department, Government of Rajasthan, Archaeology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Superintendent, Amer Palace Trust as also the Amer Development Authority, Amer Palace and further notice that under the garb of remuneration and development, the funds have been pocketed by the authorities of the State. While noticing it, a direction came to be issued to submit a detailed report in regard to grant of permission for constructing huge set and film shooting in the complex. The Court further directed that no further permission for film shooting shall be granted by the authorities in Amer Fort and Palace till necessary direction of the Court. Since the shooting of the film "Veer" was in progress, Director of Vijay Galani Movies through its Proprietor Vijay Galani has presented this application seeking modification of the order dated 13.2.09. Reply has been filed by the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court to assist the Court. We have heard learned counsel for the film and besides Advocate General and counsel for other respondent. Reply has been filed by the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court to assist the Court. We have heard learned counsel for the film and besides Advocate General and counsel for other respondent. It has been brought to our notice that the license has been granted to the firm for shooting film "Veer" at Amer Fort, excluding Sheesh Mahal, for a period of 5 days only. We have also seen from the photocopy presented before us by learned Amicus Curiae that they have entered into the premises on 22.1.09 for shooting and raised infrastructures for film. It is amply clear that before the date of grant of license, they entered the premises and used it. This is admitted by both the parties including . learned Advocate-General representing the State. At present, the situation is that the film is in the progress and its shooting has been stayed. Necessary permission in terms of the license has been granted by the concerned authority. So far as the other things noticed with order by the Court, nothing has been canvassed here except the present application for modification of the order to the extent of shooting of the film. The film authority has used the premises either from 26.1.09 or 22.1.09, which is a disputed fact as per the learned counsel for the parties. We direct Superintendent, Amer Palace Trust and also Director of the film to file their respective affidavits stating therein that from which date they entered into the premises and used the same. The Superintendent, Amer Palace Trust will determine the compensation/fee for these days also, which should reflect in the affidavit. The affidavit should further state that till the premises is used, since the permission is only for five days, how much fee and compensation is to be paid by the film party to the concerned authority. Such an affidavit shall be placed before the Court by tomorrow. While assessing the compensation and fee, the Superintendent, Amer Palace Trust will take care that it should be determined in terms of the provisions of the Rules. The proceedings of the Court shall not be published either in Lite print or electronic media. List it again on 19.2.09 at 2.00 PM." 4. While assessing the compensation and fee, the Superintendent, Amer Palace Trust will take care that it should be determined in terms of the provisions of the Rules. The proceedings of the Court shall not be published either in Lite print or electronic media. List it again on 19.2.09 at 2.00 PM." 4. On 19.2.09, the learned Division Bench presided by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice disposed of the aforesaid application filed by the Director of the Film as under: "Pursuant to our order dated 18.02.2009, the Superintendent, Amer Palace, Jaipur has filed the affidavit. It has been stated therein that he has convened a meeting of the concerned officers on 18.02.2009 and decided that any person seeking permission for shooting of the film will be required to pay 20% of the prescribed fees per day (i.e. Rupees Two Lakhs per day) for the days prior to start of shooting and at the most ten days time will be granted for such preparation. After shooting of the film, the person (licencee) will be granted three days time to remove the set and will be charged 10% of the prescribed fees per day. In case the set is not removed within three days, the fees chargeable shall be 20% of the prescribed fees per day. It has also been stated at the bar that earlier rules were silent about it and now efforts have been made as per the directions of the Court by the officers of the State to fill up the blanks for the days the permission for entry in the premises given to the licencee for making preparation and erasing infrastructure and for its removal. No fees was being levied in past. Looking to the framework and the fees chargeable, we see that there is no logic or rationale in it for the reason that once the permission to enter in the premises of the protected monument is given and used by the licencee, why the same amount of fees should not be charged. We leave it upon the authorities of the State to decide it. Mr. Alok Sharma appearing for the applicant submits that shooting of the film was undertaken pursuant to the licence granted by the competent authority. We leave it upon the authorities of the State to decide it. Mr. Alok Sharma appearing for the applicant submits that shooting of the film was undertaken pursuant to the licence granted by the competent authority. It is further stated that as per the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Antiquities Act, 1961 and the rules made thereunder, the entry in the premises can be given even for shooting of film, as rules permit for grant of licence for that purpose. Thus, shooting of film was undertaken under the authority of law. It is further stated that no damage has been caused to the monument, as while shooting the film, care was taken to see that no damage is caused to the protected monument. It is, however, submitted that for the purpose of preparation of the set, entry in the protected monument was taken from 26th January, 2009. It is admitted that no permission was existing with them to enter into the premises from 26th January, 2009 but taking into consideration the past practice, entry in the protected monument is permitted for preparation of the sets for shooting as and when licence to shoot a film is given. However, Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant on instruction has voluntarily offered to make additional payment of Rs. 20 Lakhs besides licence fees and other remunerations which have been decided by the Superintendent, Amer Palace, Jaipur, if a permission of shooting is granted. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the shooting of the film is in the mid way and all the staff including actors have left the Palace. In case the Court permits shooting of the film, the period for bringing them back and attaining the tempo of the film should be granted to them. Under the circumstance as projected before us on 17th and 18th February, 2009, we are of the view that shooting of the film `Veer' should be permitted for which the applicant has a licence. We are also of the considered view that action of the Court does not prejudice the cause of any litigant. Shooting of the film has been stopped by the Court vide order dated 12.02.2009. The permission granted by the Superintendent, Amer Palace, Jaipur commenced from 10th February, 2009 and ended on 14th February, 2009. We are also of the considered view that action of the Court does not prejudice the cause of any litigant. Shooting of the film has been stopped by the Court vide order dated 12.02.2009. The permission granted by the Superintendent, Amer Palace, Jaipur commenced from 10th February, 2009 and ended on 14th February, 2009. The period which could not be utilised by the licencee shall be granted by the licensing authority to the licencee. It has also been stated at the bar that because of the shooting of the film people assembled and a wall collapsed causing injuries to certain persons. As on day it has been submitted by the learned amicus curiae that one of the injured is still in the hospital who is a Journalist (Photographer). He needs some compensation and help for treatment. Applicant has volunteered to pay additional amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs towards the use of premises on the days prior to the date of licence. We direct that the aforesaid amount would be utilised for development of the protected monument and for the help of injured persons. In view of the above discussion, the shooting of the film in Amer Palace, Jaipur would be permitted only on following terms ; (i) Shooting of the film would be strictly as per the terms and conditions of the licence. (ii) For the purpose of shooting and preparation of sets, no damage should be caused to the protected monument. (iii) If due to any reason beyond control of the applicant, any damage is caused to the protected monument, the same would be duly compensated as determined by the Superintendent of Amer Palace, Jaipur. (iv) The Superintendent, Amer Palace, Jaipur would monitor the whole exercise of shooting of film so that no damage is caused to the protected monument and all possible care should be taken for that purpose. (v) Shooting of film should not cause any hindrance with regard to tourists visiting that place during the period of shooting. (vi) The permission of shooting in Amer would be subject to payment of Rs. 20 Lakhs to the licensing authority as agreed by the applicant. The application is disposed of." 5. (v) Shooting of film should not cause any hindrance with regard to tourists visiting that place during the period of shooting. (vi) The permission of shooting in Amer would be subject to payment of Rs. 20 Lakhs to the licensing authority as agreed by the applicant. The application is disposed of." 5. The aforesaid writ petition (PIL) was again listed before the Court on 2.3.09 when the learned Advocate-General sought time to file reply and thereafter, when the case was listed on 31.3.09, the learned Advocate-General was directed to call the Director, Archaeological Department with the notification in regard to declaring the Amer Fort and the Palace as protected monument. Then, it was ordered that the matter be put up on the next date at 10.30 as first case for further consideration and the directions. On 1st April, 2009, the learned Division Bench which had taken suo motu cognizance on 13.2.09, passed the following orders : "Mr. B.L. Gupta, Director (Archeology) and Mr. Jafrullah Khan, Superintendent (Archeology), Amer Palace are present. Mr. Bapna, learned Advocate General is directed to submit the details of the formation/constitution of the Amer Development Board as informed by the authorities which is looking after the renovation or development of Amer. The notification declaring Amer as protected monument issued way back on 12.12.74 may also be placed on record. The details of the funds received by the Board as also the nature of development already undertaken and amount expended on such development work till date may also be submitted in the affidavit. The details of the agencies entrusted to complete the work may also be given. The affidavit be filed within two weeks. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, had been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the present matter. Since after inspection of the site, a detailed report has been submitted by him along with large number of photographs of the site, in the interest of justice, the State Government is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. Abhinav Sharma as against the expenditure already incurred and to be incurred during the pendency of the present writ petition. The payment be made within two weeks prior to the next date. Put up on 27.4.09 for further consideration and directions along with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3360/09 before this Bench." 6. 50,000/- to Mr. Abhinav Sharma as against the expenditure already incurred and to be incurred during the pendency of the present writ petition. The payment be made within two weeks prior to the next date. Put up on 27.4.09 for further consideration and directions along with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3360/09 before this Bench." 6. Since then the PIL Petition has been listed before the Division Bench from time to time, and the matter remained pending for adjudication. In view of the nature of the subject matter, the learned Division Bench had been doing much exercise to look into it from all aspects as it is of great public importance. 7. Thereafter, a complaint came to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur against accused persons which included various authorities of Amer Development and Management Authority and the producer of the Film namely, Vijay Galani. 7. Thereafter, a complaint came to be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur against accused persons which included various authorities of Amer Development and Management Authority and the producer of the Film namely, Vijay Galani. The relevant extracts of the complaint reads as follows : " 3 ;g fd xr fnukad 10-02-09 ls vkesj egy esa ohj fQYe dh 'kwfVax djus dh vuqefr vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 o 4 dks iznku dh xbZ ftlds rgr ohj fQYe dh 'kwfVax esa dk;Z djus okys ;wfuV ds djhcu 2000 lnL; rFkk vU; O;fDr vkesj egy esa fnukad 10-02-09 ls 'kwfVax djuk izkjaHk dj fn;k rFkk 'kwfVax djus ls iwoZ mUgksaus vkesj egy ds chp esa fLFkr tysc pkSd esa mDr fQYe 'kwfVax ds fy, ydM+h dh cfYy;ksa] yksgs ds iksyksa] lfj;ksa o vU; lkefxz;ksa vkfn ls Hkkjh Hkjde lsV rS;kj fd;k x;k ftlls fd tysc pkSd ds lEiw.kZ Hkkx ij egy ls Hkh mapk lsV yxkus ds i'pkr~ vkesj egy esa vkus okys n'kZukfFkZ;ksa ns'kh o fons'kh i;Zvdksa rFkk vke turk dks dfBukbZ;ksa o :dkoV dk lkeuk djuk iM+k rFkk ifjoknh dks Hkh vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 o 2 ds xkMksZa rFkk :dkoV dk lkeuk djuk iM+k rFkk ifjoknh dks Hkh vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 o 4 ds lqj{kk xkMksZa ,oa flD;wfjfV us vkesj egy esa izos'k ugha djus fn;k u gh f'kyk ekrk ds eafnj esa tkdj n'kZu djus fn,A 4 ;g gD fd fo'o izfl) vkesj egy Hkkjro"kZ dh ,sfrgkfld /kjksgj gS] ftls ns[kus o mlesa fLFkr f'kyk ekrk ds eafnj esa f'kyk ekrk th ds n'kZu gsrq ns'kh] fons'kh i;ZVd rFkk LFkkuh; fuoklhx.k izfrfnu vkrs gSA ftlesa ifjoknh Hkh 'kkfey gSA mDr vkesj egy mlds vfHkUu vaxksa dks The Rajasthan Monuments Archaeoligical Sites & Antiquities Act, 1961 & Rules � 1968 ds rgr ljaf{kr Lekjd ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS rFkk mlds ikl ds {ks=ksa ds {ks=ksa dks ljaf{kr {ks= ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA 5 ;g fd vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 o 2 us vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 o 4 dks vkesj egy esa xyr ,oa fof/kd izfdz;k ds fo:) 'kwfVax dh vuqefr iznku dj nh] ftlds rgr vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 o 4 us eu ekus rjhds ls leLr fu;eksa dks rkd ij j[kdj ns'kh o fons'kh i;ZVdksa dks ijs'kkuh esa Mkydj o vketu dh tu Hkkoukvksa o /kkfeZd vkLFkkvksa dh ijokg fd;s cxSj vkesj egy esa 'kwfVax djuh izkjaHk dj nh] ftlds lUnHkZ esa xr dkQh fnuksa ls lekpkj i=ksa esa lekpkj Hkh izdkf'kr fd;s tk jgs gSa rFkk ftlds lUnHkZ esa ekuuh; vfr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( d0[k0 ) dze&1 ds le{k ,d flfoy okn fopkjk/khu gS] ftlesa vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 o 2 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk varfje fu"ks/kkKk ls fnukad 12-02-09 dks ikcUn Hkh Qjek;k x;k gS rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; cSap }kjk fnukad 13-02-09 dks v[kckjksa esa izdkf'kr [kcjksa ds vk/kkj ij Lo&izsfjr izlaKku ysdj vkesj egy esa py jgh 'kwfVax ij fu;e fo:) gksus ls jksd yxk nh gSA 6 ;g fd vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 o 2 }kjk vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 o 4 }kjk dh tk jgh fu;e fo:) 'kwfVax ij /;ku ugha fn, tkus o vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 o 4 }kjk euekus fu;eksa ds fo:) 'kwfVax djus ds dkj.k fnukad 12-02-09 dks vkesj egy esa ,sfrgkfld nhokj VwV xbZ] ftlls fd djhcu 17 O;fDr mDr nhokj ds uhps ncdj xaHkhj :i ls ?kk;y gks x,] ftlesa ls 8 O;fDr vLirky esa HkrhZ gSaA 7 ;g gS dh vkesj egy esa tc nhokj <+gh ml le; tysc pkSd esa djhcu 5000 yksx ,df=r Fks rFkk ?kVuk LFky ds 6 QhV pkSMs+ o 25 QhV yEcs jkLrs esa 500 yksx [kM+s Fks rFkk vfHk;qDr la[;k 1] 2] 3 o 4 }kjk HkhM+ dh lqj{kk ds fy, dksbZ bartke ugha fd;s x, FksA uk gh i;Zvdksa dks o n'kZukfFkZ;ksa ds fy;s iwoZ dh Hkkafr dksbZ jkLrk eafnj o egy esa tkus ds fy, NksM+s x;sA 8 ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 1 o 2 us vfHk;qDr la[;k 3 o 4 dks fu;eksa ds fo:) 'kwfVax dh vuqefr iznku djrs gq, lajf{kr Lekjd vkesj egy ds ekSfyd Lo:i ls NsM+NkM+ dh gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 3 o 4 us mDr vkesj egy ds ,srkgkfld Lo:i dh ijokg ugha djrs gq, egy ds vUnj Hkkjh Hkjde lsV yxkdj egy dk Lo:i ( egy dh nhokj <+guk ) ls f[kyokM+ dh gS rFkk fnukad 12-02-09 dks 'kwfVax ds le; igys rks Hkkjh HkhM+ dks 'kwfVax ds fy, izos'k nsuk rFkk mudh lqj{kk ds fy, dksbZ iq[rk bartke ugha djuk] ftl dkj.k mDr fnu dks vkesj egy ds nhokj <+gus ls 17 O;fDr;ksa dk ?kk;y gksuk vfHk;qDrx.kksa dk tkucw>dj fd;k x;k vkijkf/kd d`R; gSA 9 ;g gS fd vfHk;qDrx.kksa ds vkijkf/kd d`R;ksa ds dkj.k lajf{kr ,sfrgkfld Lekjd vkesj egy esa nhokj 'kwfVax pyrs jgus ds nkSjku <+gh gS rFkk lajf{kr Lekjd vkesj egy esa Hkkjh Hkjde lsV yxkdj vkesj egy ds ekSfyd o ,sfrgkfld Lo:i ls NsM+NkM+ dh gS tks budk d`R;k vUrxZr /kkjk 17 The Rajasthan Monuments Archaeoligical Sites & Antiquities Act, 1961 ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k gSA blh izdkj vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 1 o 2 ds }kjk mDr vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr tks vkpj.k djuk Fkk] mldh tkucw>dj voKk dh gS rFkk 'kwfVax ds nkSjku ifjoknh o vke tu ds egy esa fLFkr f'kyk ekrk ds eafnj esa tkus ugha nsus ij ifjoknh dh /kkfeZd Hkkoukvksa dks Bsl igqaph gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.kksa }kjk dh x;h mis{kk iwoZ dk;Z djus ds QyLo:i vkesj egy dh nhokj <+gus ls 17 O;fDr;ksa dk ?kk;y gksus ij muds ekuo thou ij ladV mRiUu gks x;k] ftlls vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 1 ls 4 mijksDr vkijkf/kd d`R; Hkk0n0l0 dh /kkjk 166] 295] 338 ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k gS] ftlds fy, mUgsa nf.Mr fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 1 o 2 us dqN futh O;fDr;ksa dks Qk;nk leLr fu;eksa dks rkd ij j[kdj vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 o 2 us vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 3 o 4 dks ljdkjh vk; dk uqdlku dj de fdjk;s ij 'kwfVax djus ij vuqefr iznku dh tcfd vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 1 o 2 jkT; ljdkj ds fgr lajf{kr djus ds fy, ck/; gSa tks vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k 1 o 2 }kjk vkijkf/kd d`R; }kjk 409 vkbZ0ih0lh0 ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k gSA " 8. A look to Para 5 of the complaint goes to show that reference has been made to the above mentioned suo motu cognizance taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the interim orders passed therein. After the office report, the complaint was posted for 16.2.09. On that day, the complainant was present but he sought time for producing evidence. Again, the case was listed on 25.2.09 when the complainant was absent, and therefore, the case was ordered to be listed on 28.2.09 for evidence of the complainant. On 28.2.09, further time was sought by the complainant to produce evidence and the case was ordered to be listed on 4.3.09. On that day, the complainant produced a copy of the preliminary report with three documents which included the photographs which had been filed in the PIL Petition ( D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1826/09, Suo Moto v. State ). The said report with documents were the copies, attested as true copy by the counsel appointed as amicus curiae in the PIL Petition before the High Court. Another document filed by the complainant was a photostat copy of the certified copy of the above mentioned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 19.2.09 in DB (PIL Writ Petition). On 4.3.09 itself, the statement of the complainant alone was recorded under Section 200 Cr.RC. On the same day, the learned Magistrate ordered for an enquiry, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amer and the next date of hearing fixed was 27.3.09. 9. On the order dated 4.3.09 having been passed by the learned Magistrate simultaneous to the proceedings pending before the Division Bench of the High Court after taking cognizance suo moto, a news item was published on 5th March, 2009. Taking into consideration the said news published in the paper, as well as the pendency of the same subject matter before the Division Bench in Suo Moto v. State , this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 and 483 Cr.RC. took suo moto cognizance of the matter pending before the learned Magistrate and ordered that the record of the case pending before the CJM, Jaipur Distt. be called forthwith. It was also ordered that the matter be listed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. took suo moto cognizance of the matter pending before the learned Magistrate and ordered that the record of the case pending before the CJM, Jaipur Distt. be called forthwith. It was also ordered that the matter be listed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. On 6.3.09, the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, on having perused the file of the learned Magistrate as well as the suo moto cognizance taken by the Division Bench of this Court, ordered that the case be placed before the Bench having the roster of cases under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the matter came up before this Court. 10. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 27th March, 2009 and notices were issued to the complainant before the court below namely Shri Ram Kishan Sharma. On the next date, i.e. on 6.4.09, no one appeared on behalf of the non petitioner No. 2 despite of service. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was given to the complainant non petitioner No. 2, and the matter was posted for 8th April, 2009. On the next date, the counsel for the non petitioner sought time to prepare the case and as agreed by both sides, the matter was ordered to be listed on 10th April for final disposal. On 10th April, 2009, counsel for both the parties were heard. The learned counsel for the respondents then submitted that he wants to place some documents in support of the submissions made by him. Then the case was listed on 16th April, 2009 and again, time was sought for placing some documents on record. On 21.4.09, the counsel for the respondents had submitted certain documents. 11. The primary contention raised by the counsel for the respondent was that even if the proceedings were pending before the Division Bench of the High Court and suo moto cognizance was taken on the subject, it is a settled principle of law that parallel criminal proceedings can also be undertaken in respect of the same subject matter. Therefore, he has submitted that no error was committed by the learned Magistrate in proceeding in the criminal case and passing orders therein. 12. Therefore, he has submitted that no error was committed by the learned Magistrate in proceeding in the criminal case and passing orders therein. 12. It is an undisputed fact in the present case that when the criminal complaint was filed before the learned court below, a Division Bench of this Court after considering all the aspects of the matter as noted in the order dated 13.2.09 and taking note of serious irregularity, had taken suo motu cognizance and issued orders as it deemed fit which included the interim order to the authorities concerned as well as the Director/Producer of the Film of which shooting was going on at Amer Palace. In para 5 of the complaint itself, the complainant had mentioned the fact about taking of suo moto cognizance by the Division Bench of the High Court on the basis of the news item published in the papers.As noted above, after filing of the complaint the complainant had been seeking time to produce evidence. Sooner the statements of the complainant, under Section 200 Cr.RC., were recorded on 4th March, 2009, the complainant had produced evidence before the learned Magistrate by way of documents and photographs which were filed in D.B. Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 1826/09, Suo Moto v. State of Raj. . Another document filed on behalf of the complainant was the order dated 19.2.09 passed by the Division Bench in the said Writ Petition pending before the High Court. Therefore, there remains no room of doubt that the main proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were initiated by the complainant-respondent subsequent to order 1 of suo moto cognizance taken by the Division Bench and as a parallel proceedings on the same subject matter. The evidence on record produced before the learned Magistrate was none else but the orders passed by the High Court, and the report produced before it on the PIL Petition, which was the subject matter of adjudication in respect of the same incident and also the controversy. 13. The principle of simultaneous proceedings on civil and criminal side cannot be denied, but then it is to be seen in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case because such proceedings can also be initiated by parties as an instrument of harassment and with ulterior movie. 13. The principle of simultaneous proceedings on civil and criminal side cannot be denied, but then it is to be seen in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case because such proceedings can also be initiated by parties as an instrument of harassment and with ulterior movie. It is also an equally settled principle of law that criminal proceedings are not to be initiated and permitted to be continued so as to week private vengeance between the parties. The facts and circumstances as well as the material on record in the instant case makes it crystal clear that the criminal proceedings were initiated with full knowledge and notice about the proceedings already initiated by the High Court. As a matter of fact, the complainant had produced the evidence of the case in High Court before the learned Magistrate. A criminal case was proceeded after obtaining copies of the order as well as the material which was the outcome of the proceedings before the High Court which was initiated on suo moto cognizance having been taken by it. 14. It is also pertinent to note here that the detail and specific orders passed by the High Court while taking suo moto cognizance had taken note of all the aspects of the matter in respect of the events/happenings in or 2 around the Amer Palace. The said petition was referred to and is pending before the Division Bench of the High Court. The notices having been issued, in the said PIL Petition, to various authorities including the learned Advocate General for State of Rajasthan, and the various orders passed, covering different aspects of the matter in question, go to show that the High Court was seized of the matter from all angles. The High Court had jurisdiction and was competent enough to issue orders in respect of civil wrong, that is by awarding adequate compensation to the parties effected and also to order for initiation of criminal proceedings in case it was so thought proper. The High Court had jurisdiction and was competent enough to issue orders in respect of civil wrong, that is by awarding adequate compensation to the parties effected and also to order for initiation of criminal proceedings in case it was so thought proper. But in my considered opinion, there was no rhyme or reason for the complainant to have initiated the criminal proceedings, being fully aware about the proceedings before the High Court, primarily on the basis of the proceedings which were continuing before the High Court and the orders passed therein from time to time.The subject matter of the present case as well as the controversy involved, was certainly pending adjudication and was sub judice before the High Court. Consequently, there was no justification whatsoever for the complainant to have lodged the impugned complaint and initiate criminal proceedings on the same subject which was sub judice before the Division Bench of the High Court and likewise the learned Magistrate had also committed a grave irregularity in proceeding with the matter in the present manner which is a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. 15. It would not be out of place to mention here, as mentioned in Para 5 of the complaint itself quoted hereinabove, that another proceedings on the civil side had been initiated and pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.1. Moreover, the learned Civil Court had also restrained the Chief Executive Officer, Amer Development and Management Authority and Superintendent, Government Museum and Palace Amer, vide its order dated 12.2.09. 16. An overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking note of the fact that the Division Bench of the High Court was already seized with the matter and the issue involved herein was sub-judice before it, I am of the considered view that there was no justification whatsoever for initiation of the criminal proceedings. In fact, propriety demanded that no sooner from perusal of the complaint itself, it was noticed by the learned Magistrate that a Bench of the High Court had already taken suo moto cognizance on the basis of the news item published on 13.2.09, then he should have refrained from proceeding on the criminal side. The learned Magistrate should not have entertained the complaint under Section 190 Cr.PC., in the instant case. 17. The learned Magistrate should not have entertained the complaint under Section 190 Cr.PC., in the instant case. 17. In a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 196 : (2006) 7 SCC 296 , the jurisdiction of the High Court has been reiterated, in Para 30, as follows : "In respect of the incidental or supplemental power, evidently, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. It is not trammelled by procedural restrictions in that: (i) Power can be exercised suo motu in the interest of justice. If such a power is not conceded, it may even lead to injustice to an accused. (ii) Such a power can be exercised concurrently with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and no formal application is required to be filed therefor. (iii) It is, however, beyond any doubt that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not unlimited. It can inter alia be exercised where the Code is silent, where the power of the court is not treated as exhaustive, or there is a specific provision in the Code; or the statute does not fall within the purview of the Code because it involves application of a special law. It acts ex debito justitiae. It can, thus, do real and substantial justice for which alone it exists." 18. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that filing of complaint by the respondent and initiation of the criminal proceedings by the Magistrate in the instant case, is a sheer abuse of the process of the Court and cannot be allowed to stand. Therefore, the present case is one where in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.RC. and powers under Section 483 Cr.P.C. by which the Legislature has in its wisdom cast a duty on the High Court for superintendence over the courts of learned Magistrates. 19. Consequently, it is ordered that the criminal complaint filed by Ram Kishan Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, respondent No. 2 on 13.2.09 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur and the proceedings initiated in furtherance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside.Criminal Proceeding quashed. *******