Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 46 (UTT)

Balwant Singh Chuphal v. Mohan Chandra Pant

2014-02-18

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the impugned order dated 08.09.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, in criminal revision no. 22 of 2008, Mohan Chandra and others vs Balwant Singh Chuphal, as also the complaint filed by the applicant before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, relating to offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 199, 499 of IPC. 2) Respondent no. 1 filed a complaint (copy Annexure 1 to the petition) against the applicant before Hon’ble Lokayukta, Uttaranchal on 11.08.2003. Certain allegations were levelled against the Society, which was being headed by the applicant. On the complaint thus filed by respondent no. 1, notice was issued to the applicant by Hon’ble Lokayukta. 3) In the meantime, applicant filed a criminal complaint case against all the accused persons (respondents herein) in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, which was registered as complaint case no. 152 of 2007. The said complaint was filed in respect of offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 199, 499 and 500 of IPC. Statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Statements of the witnesses, namely, Dharam Singh Bisht and Bhuwan Chandra Tiwari, were recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. After considering such statements and having found a prima facie case against the accused persons, they were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 199 and 499 of IPC, vide order dated 22.02.2008. Certain objections were raised by the respondents against the summoning order, which objections were not entertained by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Haldwani, vide order dated 09.05.2008. The respondents herein filed a criminal revision against the impugned orders dated 22.02.2008 and 09.05.2008 in the court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. The said criminal revision was allowed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2008. Orders passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani on 22.02.2008 were set aside. The complaint filed by the applicant was held to be not maintainable. The said criminal revision was allowed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2008. Orders passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani on 22.02.2008 were set aside. The complaint filed by the applicant was held to be not maintainable. 4) Whereas learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, prima facie, offences complained of against the respondents were made out and the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge was bad in the eyes of law, learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Court towards sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975. The said provision is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “13. Action in case of false complaint. –(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act every person who willfully or maliciously makes any false compliant under this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) No Court, except a Court of Session, in the case of a complaint investigated by the Lokayukta or a Court of Magistrate, First Class in the case of complaint investigated by an Up-Lokayukta shall take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1). (3) No such Court shall take cognizance of such offence as aforesaid except on a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor at the direction of the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta, as the case may be, and the Court of Session may take cognizance of the offence on such complaint without the case being committed to it, anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, notwithstanding.” 5) In the instant case, a criminal complaint case was filed by the applicant against the respondents in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, the fact, in the background of which, was the complaint filed by respondent no. 1 against the Society, headed by the applicant, before Hon’ble Lokayukta. Whether the complaint filed by respondent no. 1 against the Society headed by the applicant was a false complaint or a genuine complaint or whether respondent no. 1 made such complaint willfully or maliciously was to be adjudicated as per the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975. Whether the complaint filed by respondent no. 1 against the Society headed by the applicant was a false complaint or a genuine complaint or whether respondent no. 1 made such complaint willfully or maliciously was to be adjudicated as per the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975. Unfortunately, instead of taking course to Section 13 of the Act, the criminal complaint case was entertained by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, which criminal complaint case was not maintainable. 6) Learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, has discussed the aforesaid provision keeping in view the contents of the complaint filed by the applicant against the respondents. In other words, the contents of the complaint filed before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani were discussed, vis-à-vis, the complaint filed by respondent no. 1 against the Society headed by the applicant before Hon’ble Lokayukta alongwith the provision of Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975. Learned Sessions Judge appropriately dealt with the matter and rightly came to the conclusion that the criminal complaint case filed by the applicant against the respondents before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani was not maintainable. 7) Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, committed a manifest error of law in taking cognizance of the offences in respect of a complaint filed by the respondents against the Society, headed by the applicant, before Hon’ble Lokayukta. On the other hand, there was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, who allowed the criminal revision filed by the respondents and set aside the order passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani. 8) Having found no illegality in the judgment and order under challenge, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant is liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.