The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be misused for personal vendettas, requiring clear evidence of criminal intent for prosecution under IPC.

ORDER :

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/revisionist assailing the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jaipur Metro-First in Criminal Revision No.812/2019 whereby the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner/revisionist and affirmed the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metro, accepting the negative final report (No.399A/2012) filed by the investigating agency in connection with FIR No.104/2009, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner/complainant submitted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 21 Jaipur Metro, inter alia alleging that in 2001, he was working on the post of Professor in MRCE, Jaipur and was living with his wife, respondent No.2 herein and his son at D-61, Staff Colony, MRCE Jaipur. It is alleged in the complaint that on 19.09.2001, passports of his wife and son were issued from the Passport Office, Jaipur and thereafter, he along with his wife and son went to England for his job purpose. It is alleged that the respondent wife and her family members were pressurizing him to do everything as per their choice. On 29.11.2004, the petitioner along with his wife and children, came to India. However, the co-accused Nos.2 to 5, took away his wife and valuables against his wishes while saying that they would send her at his house after one week. However, when his wife did not return to him, he inquired into the matter and came to know that she along with her son had gone to foreign whereas the original passports of both his wife and son were with him. It is also alleged in the complaint that on enquiry, it was further come to his knowledge that his wife i.e., respondent No.2 in connivance with other co-accused filed a report regarding missing of her passport at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar and on the basis of this false report, succeeded in getting the duplicate passport. The learned trial court forwarded the matter for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the SHO Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur whereupon an FIR No.104/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 193, 194, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC came to be registered. After completion of the investigation, the police filed negative final report in the Court concerned. Being dissatisfied with negative final report, the petitioner-complainant filed protest petition and got examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

3. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner/complainant on the point of cognizance, vide order dated 29.06.2018, accepted the negative final report and rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner-complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner- complainant challenged the order dated 29.06.2018 by way of filing revision petition before learned Revisional Court. However, the learned Revisional Court also vide its order dated 09.10.2023, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 29.06.2018. Hence this misc. petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that trial magistrate as well as learned revisional court have committed grave illegality in dismissing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner/complainant. Counsel further submits that from the material available on record, it is evident that false report was given by the respondent no.2 before the concerned SHO with regard to loss/missing of passports belonging to her and her children. Counsel further submits that similar application was submitted before the passport authority in order to obtain a fresh passports. Counsel further submits that it is also evident from the record that her passport was impounded. In appeal, filed by the respondent no.2, it was held by the Appellate Authority that on the basi