Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 440 (RAJ)

Madharam Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-06

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.18/2019 dated 17.01.2019 registered at Police Station Taleda, Bundi, for offences under Sections 166, 166A, 167, 182, 197, 220, 221, 419, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 2. In the present case, FIR has been lodged under the directions of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi, by Presiding Officer Gram Nayalaya, Taleda. 3. A perusal of the FIR reveal that the Presiding Officer Gram Nayalaya Taleda, stated that on 01.01.2019 he was performing remand duty and in case, arising out of FIR No.48/2018-19 Excise Inspector Madharam Meghwal along with constable Bejnath and constable Sultan produced one Latur Lal son of Funda Lal for offence under Section 19/54 of Excise Act. 4. Presiding Officer Gram Nayalaya, Taleda who was performing the remand duty, noted that in the case diary produced photographs of the accused were not there. Inspector Madharam Meghwal stated before him that on 31.12.2018 at 6.30 pm he had arrested the accused and since his vehicle broke down, therefore, he could not obtain photographs of the accused. 5. After making oral inquiry, the court granted remand. Subsequently, the court granted bail. The court further noted on 05.01.2019 that a news was published in Dainik Bhaskar that Excise Inspector produced one person namely one Satyanarayan as Latur Lal in the court and wrongly the remand was obtained. 6. It is case where Satyanarayan as Latur Lal by way of impersonation was produced before the court and was identified as such before the court and thereafter, remand and bail was obtained. It is alleged by Satyanarayan in another FIR that due to monetary considerations for ulterior reasons accused was substituted. It is a case of impersonation and fabrication of documents before the court. 7. Having heard counsel for the petitioner accused and learned Public Prosecutor, this court is of the view that the Presiding Officer Gram Nayalaya, Taleda, under the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate was performing the remand duty, therefore, the said court for all intent and purposes, was a Criminal Court under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. In the present case, by way of impersonation Satyanarayan was produced before the court as Latur Lal. It has surfaced in another FIR lodged by Satyanarayan that he was paid Rs. 1,000/- to substitute himself as Latur Lal. 8. In the present case, by way of impersonation Satyanarayan was produced before the court as Latur Lal. It has surfaced in another FIR lodged by Satyanarayan that he was paid Rs. 1,000/- to substitute himself as Latur Lal. In fact, earlier Latur Lal was arrested for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. Not only a wrong person was produced in the court and was identified by the officer seeking remand, but a fabricated remand application was presented before the court. Thereafter, the bail application was also filed on behalf of Latur Lal whereas bail was obtained for Satyanarayan who was made to impersonate as Latur Lal. Bail bonds in the court premises were fabricated and were furnished before the court, therefore, the act of the persons who fabricated the record falls within Chapter XI of IPC (False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice). 9. As to how the offences under Chapter XI of IPC are to be dealt with, the procedure has been prescribed under sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., 1973 10. In view of bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973 the complaint only could be lodged by the court from which remand was obtained or before whom bail was filed and bail bonds were furnished. It will be apposite here to reproduce Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973:195. In view of bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973 the complaint only could be lodged by the court from which remand was obtained or before whom bail was filed and bail bonds were furnished. It will be apposite here to reproduce Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973:195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority or public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence- (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196(both inclusive),199, 200, 205 to 211(both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471 section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii)[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate]. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of Sub Section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint; Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate; Provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed." 11. In view of above, it was incumbent for the court to lodge the complaint before another court for trial of the accused. Consequently, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed with a specific directions to the court which was assigned remand duty or had passed order of bail or had accepted bail bonds furnished, to hold an inquiry within ambit of Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973 within a period of 15 days in accordance with provisions of law. The said court shall institute complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the petitioner and other persons whose name shall surface in the inquiry held under Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973.