Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2262 (RAJ)

Purushottam Das Maheshwari v. Vimal Singh Bapna

2013-12-12

NISHA GUPTA

body2013
ORDER This Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by Civil Judge (JD) and Magistrate, Kishangarh, Ajmer in Criminal Case No.1/2005 whereby the cognizance has not been taken against the respondent after inquiry under Section 340, Cr. P.C. 2. The short facts of the case are that complainant moved before the Additional District Judge, Kishangarh u/S. 340, Cr. P.C. on 22.9.2006 that the respondent abused the present petitioner and threatened to beat him in the court room and obstructed the proceedings of the court, for the same application under Section 340, Cr. P.C has been filed on 25.4.2006 which was sent for inquiry to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 3.5.2006. After inquiry, the court was of the opinion that there is no ground to proceed with the matter and hence this petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that respondent No.2 has misbehaved in the court and obstructed the proceedings and he has also forged the Will. As regards forgery of the Will, separate FIR has been lodged by the complainant hence that controversy cannot be inquired under Section 340, Cr. P.C and admittedly Will has not been forged during the proceedings of the court. 4. The other contention of the present petitioner is that on 22.4.2006 in the court room before the Presiding officer the respondent has misbehaved with him and obstructed the proceedings of the court but the court below has rightly held that order-sheet dated 22.4.2006 of the court does not contain any such averment and it has been stated that Ajay Singh has intervened but Ajay Singh has not been produced before the court below and for the same incident, present petitioner has moved before the court of ACJM under Sections 107 and 116, Cr. P.C., the court below after inquiry came to the conclusion that no further inquiry is needed and no further case is made out against the respondent No.2 and as per provisions of Section 340, Cr. P.C. it is not obligatory on the part of the court that an inquiry should be made. On the order of the higher court, inquiry has been made and considering the finding recorded by the court below, there is no infirmity in the finding and this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Petition dismissed.