JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Mahendra Singh Rajawat, who was at the relevant time Co-operative Inspector in Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur for quashing the complaint No. 8/2008 filed by Hanendra Kumar Mehta, and against the order dated 12.2.2009 and 13.10.2008 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur for taking cognizance against the petitioner on the basis of statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 31 and 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. 2. The complainant Hemendra Kumar Mehta presented a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 JDA Court, Jaipur against several persons including the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 31, 72 read with Section 75 of the JDA Act on 13.10.2008. On the same day the report was called and the stamp reporter raised 5 objections which were overruled by the Presiding Officer on the same day and without recording the statements of the witnesses he took cognizance against the petitioner along with others. In this case normally the Court posts the case next date for report and thereafter records the statements of witnesses if case is made out then take cognizance but in this case the cognizance was taken first that is also on the same day of presentation of complaint and thereafter recorded the statements of complainant under above mentioned sections in due course the trial Court first and thereafter took cognizance. After taking cognizance the trial Court fixed the case for recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed written submission and it has been stated that prior to filing of complainant in the instant matter, one Om Prakash Sharma lodged an F.I.R. No. 498/2008 on 9.6.2008 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar for the same incident. The investigation of same is pending. The incident mentioned in the complaint and F.I.R. No. 490 of 2008 are of the year 1994 to 1999. The investigation of same is pending. The incident mentioned in the complaint and F.I.R. No. 490 of 2008 are of the year 1994 to 1999. The complaint was presented by the complainant to take the favour of Presiding Officer by adding Sections 31, 72 and 75 of JPA Act whereby the jurisdiction of JDA Court was made because when the complainant found that no offence is made out against the petitioner as well as some other persons so he played a trick by adding the sections of JDA Act to get the favour of the Presiding Officer of their choice. It is clear from the act of the complainant that no offence against him is made out from bare perusal of complaint as well as the cognizance order. The petitioner was not the owner of any plot and nor beneficiary from any side and even by his duty no body is effected. After perusal of F.I.R., complaint as well as the statement of the witness Hemendra Kumar Mehta, it was not alleged against the petitioner that he forged any document or made any signature hence no offence under Section 467 I.P.C. is made out. The petitioner was posted in the JDA in the year 2000. According to the complaint as well as the statement of the witness Hemendra Kumar Mehta, the incidents were recorded for the year 1994 to 1999 in that period the petitioner was not posted in JDA and he is liable to be attributed any act in the commission of offence. It was alleged in the statement of the complainant that the petitioner along with others advertised about the goodwill of housing society on the above allegation no offence is made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the statement of the complainant no offence under Sections 72, 75 and 31 of the JDA Act is made out against him because it is not alleged in the complaint that the petitioner encroached upon the land and made obstruction upon public land. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complainant neither alleged in the complaint nor in the statement that he cheated and dishonestly induced him to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, hence no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complainant neither alleged in the complaint nor in the statement that he cheated and dishonestly induced him to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, hence no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out. It was further contended that it was also not alleged against the petitioner about the forgery by the petitioner for the purpose of cheating hence no offence under Section 468 I.P.C. is made out and it was not alleged that the petitioner used the forged document as genuine hence no offence under Section 471 I.P.C. is made out. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 wherein the Apex Court issued certain directions according to that it was pointed out that the cognizance against the petitioner is liable to be set aside in the exercise of inherent powers of this Court. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that the JDA Court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner. The petitioner was relevant time working as Cooperative Inspector in the JDA. It was prayed that this Court in exercise of its inherent powers should not interfere in the order of cognizance against the petitioner. The ruling of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal is not applicable to the facts of this case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the order dated 12.2.2009 of the JDA Court taking cognizance against the petitioner and others and the complaint filed by the complainant. 6. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads as under : 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 7. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 7. It is also necessary to have a look at the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , which are as under : (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code, (c) where the un-controverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (d) where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code, (e) where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party, (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H, 306A-E] 8. [305D-H, 306A-E] 8. In the order dated 12.2.2009, the JDA Court observed as under : " lgdkfjrk izdks"B esa deZpkjh@vf/kdkjhx.k dh feyh Hkxr dh izFke n'"Vr;k iqf"V nLrkostkr dh lwph ds en la[;k 21 o 22 esa of.kZrkuqlkj i'"B la[;k 103 o 106 ij miyC/k nLrkostkr Hkw[k.M la[;k 77 o 77 ds uke gLrkUrj.k gsrq vkseizdk'k eq.M o Jherh jk/kk nsoh eq.M }kjk ,d gh fnukad 5-6-2001 dks tsMh, ds lgdkfjrk izdks"B ea izLrqr vkosnu i= gSA ftlesa lacaf/kr fyfid us ;g Li"V fjiksVZ vafdr dh gqbZ gS fd o"kZ 1999 dh lwph esa vkosndksa ds uke ,oa Hkw[k.M la[;k ntZ ugha gS fQj Hkh lgdkfjrk izdks"B }kjk nksuksa Hkw[k.Mksa ds vkoafV;ksa ds :i esa vkseizdk'k eq.M o Jhefr jk/kk nsoh eq.M dk uke gLrkUrj.k djk fn;k gSA nLrkostkr dh lwph dh en la[;k 22 esa of.kZrkuqlkj i'"B la[;k 130 ij miyC/k i= ds vuqlkj ;g lc dk;Zokgh lgdkfjrk izdks"B esa rRle; dk;Zjr Mhfyax vflLVsUV eksguyky 'kekZ] fujh{kd ( lgdkfjrk ) egsUnz flag jktkor ,oa lgk;d jftLV~kj iadt Hkkuw flag }kjk dh xbZ gSA " " 21- bl izdkj fd;s x;s foospukuqlkj vkjksihx.k vkseizdk'k eq.M] Jherh jk/kk nsoh eq.M] Jhefr olqujk dqekjh] dqekj ,dyO; flag] lat; flag] jfo nRr 'kekZ] czg~e dqekj 'kekZ] czteksgu 'kekZ] gjdhjr flag] iadt Hkkuw flag] egsUnz flag jktkor] eksguyky 'kekZ o lqjsUnz dVsok }kjk izFke n'"V;k Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk/kkjk 120ch] 420] 467] 468 o 471 ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;s tkus rFkk tsMh, ,DV dh/kkjk 31 o 72 lifBr/kkjk 120ch ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;s tkus dk ekeyk cuuk ik;k tkrk gS o mDr vijk/kksa ds fy, buds fo:) vfxze dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ds izFke n'"V;k i;kZIr vk/kkj miyC/k tk;s tkrs gSA " In para 6 of the complaibt it has been stated as under: " ;g fd t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds deZpkjh rFkk iqfyl ds vf/kdkjh o ljdkj ds vf/kdkjh] ftuesa iadt Hkkuw flag] lqjsUnz dVsok] egsUnz flag] eksgu yky 'kekZ vkfn lfEefyr gS [kkl rkSj ij cSad o ljdkj o dkjiksjs'kUl esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ds ifjokjksa dks ;g izpkj djus Fks fd la;qDr x'g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr o vfHk;qDr jfonRr fcYdqy mi;qDr o lgh dks djus okys yksx gS vr% bl lfefr ls Hkw[k.M ysuk pkfg;sA " In para 17 it has been stated in complaint as under: " 17- ;g fd vfHk;qDr egsUnz flag eksgu yky us lgdkjh lfefr esa iz'kkld fu;qDr gksus ds ckn Hkh jfonRr] c'geksgu o czg~edqekj ls fjiksVZ ys ysdj lkjh gsjkQsjh dh gSA " 9. In the complaint allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for involvement in the criminal conspiracy and the JDA Court has rightly took cognizance against the petitioner and others. The order of the JDA Court taking cognizance against the petitioner does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The rulings cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case.Thus, this criminal misc. petition against the order dated 12.2.2009 of the JDA Court for taking cognizance against the petitioner stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the points raised in the misc. petition at the appropriate stage before the trial Court.Petition dismissed. *******