An independent criminal complaint based on civil proceedings is not maintainable; recourse should be via Section 340 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, J. - Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from order dated 10.06.2010 in criminal revision No. 39/2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Deeg, District Bharatpur whereby a revision petition of respondent No. 2 and 3 was allowed and order of cognizance dated 11.01.2008 in criminal case No. 12/2008, arising out of FIR No. 08/2007 PS Deeg passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg was set aside.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner-complainant while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit against the Municipal Board but before that he filed an application for regularization of possession of suit property on the basis of old possession. He further submitted that the petitioner has deposited the requisite fees but respondents had refused for registration therefore he sought relief in civil suit. He submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement in the Civil Court not only denied fact of regularization but also stated that no record was available related to regularization of land of petitioner. According to petitioner respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have deliberately made this statement, so committed offence under Section 191, 193, 197, 201, 204, 420 and 423 IPC. He also submitted that after police investigation and submission of closure report, petitioner examined himself and other witnesses under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of material and evidence the Trial Court had passed order of cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 423 IPC against respondents No.2 and 3 but same was disturbed without any reason by learned Revisional Court. He further submitted that material on record was sufficient to justify cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but the Revisional Court travelled beyond the scope of revision and without considering the fact that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not only denied the facts but also made a wrong statement before the Civil Court. He also submitted that copy of receipt of deposit was also filed by him but entire record was deliberately misplaced, so that the order of Revisional Court is perverse and illegal.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents on the ground that no case is made out for cognizance as material on record was not sufficient to take cognizance against the respondents. He also submitted that the police after investigation has filed negative closure report which also indicate that no offence was committed. He also pleaded for protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. available to respondents No. 2 and 3.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. A perusal of averment made in the complaint and also the facts stated in final report submitted in pursuant to investigation in FIR No. 08/2007 indicated that arising out of written statement (pleading) made before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division Deek) in Civil suit No. 41/2006, a criminal complaint was filed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner heavily relied upon receipt No. 87 of Book No. 132 for Rs. 5999/- deposited on 11.05.2005 for regularization of land for residential purpose.

6. Herein, the grounds assailed by present petitioner clearly indicated that only on basis of pleading, particularly refusal to admit facts in written statement by the respondents, the criminal complaint was filed.

7. The instant complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was sent to police for registration of case. At last after investigation, the police had submitted negative closure report considering the matter as of civil nature.

8. We have considered the order of learned Trial Court and also the order passed by the Revisional Court.

9. The Revisional Court was of the view that learned Magistrate had not followed the mandate under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and acted in cursory manner. The Revisional Court was also of the view th