JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 9th January, 2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and the FIR No.25/2009, registered with Police Station-Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. 2. A complaint was filed by the non-petitioner-Shri Krishna Kukkad on 09.11.2006. The court passed an order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with the direction to send the report on or before 11.12.2006. The Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur did not register the FIR but made inquiry by taking "rapat" in the "Rojnamcha". It then filed a report in the court on 18.11.2006 disclosing that no offence is made out. The complainant-non-petitioner filed an application on 26.03.2007 stating that mandatory provision of Section 154 Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to and the order of the court was violated in a deliberate manner by not registering FIR. The court below considered the application and called the explanation of the SHO, Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. The order aforesaid was challenged by maintaining revision petition. The order was set aside with remand of the case for fresh order. The court then passed an order for registration of FIR in pursuance to the order dated 10.11.2006 and make investigation of the case. The FIR was then registered on 12.01.2009. It has been challenged by this petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Rajesh Kapoor submits that a complaint was filed by the non-petitioner based on news published in the newspaper and not based on his own knowledge. The allegation in the FIR is for allotment of land under political influence. For the said purpose, a forged application was filed in the name of Deendayal Smriti Trust. The trust was not registered by the time application was submitted and allotment order was issued. The registration of the trust was subsequent to the allotment, thus valuable land was got allotted by fraudulent means. 4. It is stated that the FIR was lodged in ignorance of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (in short "Act of 1959") and Rules made thereunder. The gist of the allegation is that without registration of public trust, application for allotment of land was made followed by its allotment. It was for valuable land, which could not have been allotted to an unregistered trust. The gist of the allegation is that without registration of public trust, application for allotment of land was made followed by its allotment. It was for valuable land, which could not have been allotted to an unregistered trust. The application so submitted does not disclose that the public trust is registered so as to consider it to be fraudulent. The mistake in filing of complaint occurred as it was based on news published in the daily newspaper without confirming the facts and the legal position. If the FIR is taken on its face value, no offence is disclosed if it is seen in reference to the legal provisions. The complaint is containing absurd allegations based on news published in the newspaper without proper information of facts and law. The trust was registered on 22.08.2006 i.e. prior to lodging of the complaint on 09.11.2006. The fact aforesaid has been mentioned in the FIR itself. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner gave reference of Section 17 of the Act of 1959 to show that registration of a public trust can be sought within a period of two years from its creation otherwise it can have penal consequences. In view of the above, registration of trust is not required from the date of its creation. The only necessity is to get the trust registered within a period of two years from the date of its creation. In the instant case, the trust was registered soon after its creation. It was well within the statutory period given for registration. In the background aforesaid, unregistered trust was having authority to make an application and no fraudulent act exist in making the application. If legal provisions are applied to the facts narrated in the FIR, no offence is disclosed. 6. Learned counsel further stated that the order dated 09.01.2009 has been challenged wherein direction is for registration of the FIR. The challenge to the said order has become infructuous, rather it was even at the time of filing of the petition, as FIR was registered implementing the said order. If FIR is quashed, there would be no necessity to touch the order but issue may be kept open as to whether registration of FIR is pre-condition as and when order is passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 7. The prayer is to quash the FIR in the light of the facts given above. If FIR is quashed, there would be no necessity to touch the order but issue may be kept open as to whether registration of FIR is pre-condition as and when order is passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 7. The prayer is to quash the FIR in the light of the facts given above. It is moreso when after allotment of the land, lease deed was not issued in favour of the trust, rather the trust itself refused to accept allotment of the land when demand letter was issued. In view of above, there exist no allotment of land pursuant to the application. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri S.K. Gupta submitted that the FIR can be quashed on any of the grounds laid down in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch.Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. This court may accordingly consider the case. It is, however, admitted that as per Section 17 of the Act of 1959, a public trust can seek registration within a period of two years from its creation or enactment, whichever is later. In view of above, it cannot be said that any forgery was committed while making an application by unregistered trust. It got registered within the statutory period given under Section 17 of the Act of 1959. It is further stated that the application so submitted by the trust was not with disclosure of its status as registered trust. The things could have been different, if application itself would have disclosed it to be by a registered public trust. 9. It is further stated that as and when order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is passed, it is not necessary for the police to register the case, rather, an inquiry can be made by recording it on a "rapat". Reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 has been given. 10. Learned counsel Shri A.K. Jain appearing for non-petitioner complainant submitted that a complaint was filed based on the news published in the newspaper. It was not on his personal knowledge. The FIR can be lodged based on the facts given in the news. It remains subject matter of investigation by the police or inquiry by the court. 10. Learned counsel Shri A.K. Jain appearing for non-petitioner complainant submitted that a complaint was filed based on the news published in the newspaper. It was not on his personal knowledge. The FIR can be lodged based on the facts given in the news. It remains subject matter of investigation by the police or inquiry by the court. The non-petitioner-complainant filed complaint based on the facts disclosed in the newspaper. Since valuable land was allotted to the unregistered trust, complaint was filed containing those allegations. The basic allegation in the FIR is about allotment of land in reference to the application made by the unregistered trust, that too, a valuable land. If Section 17 of the Act of 1959 provides for registration of the trust within a period of two years from its creation, this court may take its own view for challenge to the FIR. 11. I have considered rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 12. A complaint was lodged by the complainant based on the news. The court below passed an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Police registered "rapat" and, based on the inquiry, submitted report, disclosing no offence. The court below then passed a detailed order directing the Police to register the FIR and make investigation. The said order is challenged but is not pressed because, subsequently, FIR was registered, hence, the order had taken effect even prior to filing of this petition. I need not to discuss the issue as to whether Police need to register the FIR as and when order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is passed. 13. The question now comes as to whether grounds for challenge to the FIR are sustainable or not. The challenge to the FIR has been made on the ground that even if FIR is taken on its face value it does not prima facie constitute an offence and, otherwise, allegations contained in the FIR are absurd. The perusal of the FIR shows allegation for making application for allotment of valuable land in a fraudulent manner. The allegations have been made in ignorance of the legal provisions. To consider the aforesaid, I have gone through the FIR. I find that basic allegation is for submission of an application in a fraudulent manner for allotment of valuable land by an unregistered trust and order for allotment was issued by the JDA, in connivance. The allegations have been made in ignorance of the legal provisions. To consider the aforesaid, I have gone through the FIR. I find that basic allegation is for submission of an application in a fraudulent manner for allotment of valuable land by an unregistered trust and order for allotment was issued by the JDA, in connivance. The FIR, however, discloses registration of trust even before lodging of the complaint. To appreciate as to whether the allegations are made out on the face value or not, reference of Section 17 of the Act of 1959 would be relevant, thus quoted hereunder: "Sec. 17 - Registration of public trust: (1) Within two years from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created whichever is later, the working trustee thereof shall apply to the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for the registration of such public trust. (2) The Assistant Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period prescribed by subsection (1) for the making of an application for registration by not more than three months. (3) Each such application shall be accompanied by such fee, if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be utilised for such purpose, as may be prescribed. (2) The Assistant Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period prescribed by subsection (1) for the making of an application for registration by not more than three months. (3) Each such application shall be accompanied by such fee, if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be utilised for such purpose, as may be prescribed. (4) The application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall contain the following particulars, namely:- (i) the origin (so far as known), nature and object of the public trust and the designation by which the public trust is or shall be known; (ii) the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate; (iii) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager; (iv) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee; (v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof; (vi) the approximate value of the movable and immovable property; (vii) the gross average annual income derived from movable and immovable property and from any other source, if any, based on the actual gross annual income during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has elapsed since the creation of the trust, whichever period is shorter, and, in the case of a newly created public trust, the estimated gross annual income from all such sources; (viii) the amount of the average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the period to which the particulars under clause (vii) relate, and in the case of a newly created public trust, the estimated annual expenditure in connection with such public trust; (ix) the address to which any communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent; (x) such other particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that the rules made may provide that in the case of any or all public trusts it shall not be necessary to give the particulars of the trust property of such value and such kind as may be specified therein. (5) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be signed and verified in accordance with the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) for signing and verifying plaints. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the instrument of trust (if such instrument has been executed and is in existence) and, where the trust property includes immovable property entered in a record of rights, a copy of the relevant entries relating to such property in such record of rights shall also be enclosed. (6) No Assistant Commissioner shall proceed with any application for the registration of a public trust in respect of which an application for registration has been filed previously before any other Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first shall decide which Assistant Commissioner shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust. (7) An appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first, given under sub-section (6) may be filed within sixty days before the Commissioner and, subject to the decision on such appeal, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner under subsection (6) shall be final." 14. As per Section 17 of the Act of 1959, registration of public trust is required within a period of two years from the date of its creation or from the date of application of the aforesaid provision, whichever is later. In view of Section 17 of the Act of 1959, creation of trust would be followed by its registration within a period of two years. The trustees have been directed to seek registration of public trust for which procedure is given under Section 18 of the Act of 1959. This makes it clear that registration of public trust need not be on the date of its creation but within two years thereof. Reference of judgment of this court in the case of Jagannath v. Satya Narain, reported in RLW 1972 491 has been given. Therein, issue aforesaid has been referred with its consequence. The relevant paras 18, 19 & 25 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference: "18. Chapter V is about registration of public trusts. Section 16 thereof provides that the Assistant Commissioner shall be in charge of the registration of all public trusts. Therein, issue aforesaid has been referred with its consequence. The relevant paras 18, 19 & 25 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference: "18. Chapter V is about registration of public trusts. Section 16 thereof provides that the Assistant Commissioner shall be in charge of the registration of all public trusts. Section 17 casts a duty on the working trustees to apply for registration of a public trust within two years from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created, whichever is later. Here I may also refer to Section 70 of the Act which lays down a penalty. It provides that whoever contravenes any provision of Subsection (1) of Section 17 shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. 19. Section 18 lays down the procedure. for inquiry regarding registration. Then there is a provision for the Assistant Commissioner giving a finding about the completion of the inquiry and there is further a provision for appeal. Then there are other ancillary provisions which need not be read. 25. The underlying intention of the Legislature has to be gathered from the scheme of the Act and from the language employed in Section 29 thereof. As the preamble of the Act suggests, the Act was designed to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State. Registration of public trusts would be necessary for their proper administration. By registration the authorities of the State would be put In know of such trusts and they would be in a position to exercise effective control over them and without such registration it may very well be that the authorities may remain ignorant of such trusts. In this context Section 17 has to be viewed by reading it with Section 70. It has been made incumbent on the working trustees to make an application for the registration of the public trusts within the specified time on the pain of punishment." 15. With the legal position aforesaid, if the allegations are looked into, it becomes clear that complaint is based on the news without clarifying that if the application for allotment of land is made by the public trust, yet to be registered, it amounts to fraud. With the legal position aforesaid, if the allegations are looked into, it becomes clear that complaint is based on the news without clarifying that if the application for allotment of land is made by the public trust, yet to be registered, it amounts to fraud. If allegations are considered in the light of Section 17 of the Act of 1959, it becomes clear that they were made without appreciation of law. 16. It is not a case where allegations are that as per scheme of the Jaipur Development Authority, an application for allotment of land can be made only by registered public trust. Even if it is assumed that such an application can be made only by the registered public trust, a public trust having applied for its registration, cannot be said to have submitted application by fraudulent means. It may be that in the given circumstances, the JDA should not have processed the application. So far as petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said that he did fraudulent act while making application. The allegation against the petitioner for the aforesaid seems to be without taking legal position into consideration. It is otherwise a case where no lease deed was issued subsequently, rather, the trust itself withdrew the application and, accordingly, allotment was cancelled. In the light of the facts given above, I am of the opinion that allegations in the FIR were made without taking into consideration legal provisions applicable to a public trust and the procedure for allotment of the land. In view of the above, I do not find that the petitioner has committed any offence in making application for allotment of land on behalf of the public trust. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, FIR No.25/2009, registered with Police Station-Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur for offence under Sections 409, 420 read with Sections 120B, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 & 39 IPC is quashed.The petition is allowed with the aforesaid.Petition allowed. *******