Honble GUPTA, J.–Through these misc. petitions u/s. 482, Cr.P.C., one Judicial Officer and two advocates seek the quashment of F.I.R. No. 94/99, P.S. Kotwali, Dungarpur.

(2). The F.I.R. lodged by Prakash Patel, Advocate, on 7.4.99 is reproduced on the next page.

^mijksDr ekeys fuosnu gS fd esjs ft;kth Jh fkoyky th iVsy firk Jh ekaxhyky th ,MoksdsV Fks ,oa Mwaxjiqj o vkliqj dh dksVZ esa odkyr djrs FksA

eqfYte 1 ls 4 rd us Lo;a ds ykHkksa gsrq fiNysa djhc ,d ekg ls rax ,oa ijskku dj j[kk Fkk ftlls ijskku gksdj mUgksus Mwaxjijw ds dbZ ofj"B ,MoksdsV i.M;k] kqDyk lk-] jkBkSM+ lk-] Jh ih-,l- o latho lk-] y{eh yky th tSu vkfn dbZ ,MoksdsV dks o eq>s o esjs firkth cM+s HkkbZ lk- Jh gjhk th o ?kj ds lnL;ksa lHkh dks os dgrs Fks fd mDr eqyfte eftLVªsV us :iyky ¼eqfYteku½ dks dgdj esjs fo:) >wBh Qfj;kns ysrk gS rFkk dgrk gS fd esjh dksVZ vkliqj dksVZ ds odhy ds vykok nwljs odhyksa dk eqag ugha ns[kuk pkgrk gwaA rFkk esjs ft;kth dks dgrs Fks fd rq>s fxjQ~rkj dj tsy Hkst nwaxk ,oa eqfYte 2,3 o 4 e`rd Jh fkoyky th us ejus ls igys dbZ ckj odhy leqnk; dks ,oa esjs ifjokj ls dgk Fkk fd eSa mDr eqfYtekuksa dh rax o ijskkfu;ka o vR;kpkjksa ls ,slk yxrk gSA fd ;s eq>s gj rjhds ls >wBk Qlk,saxs thou esa thfor jgus dk dksbZ ekxZ utj ugha vk jgk gS! vkRe gR;k gh eq>s djuh iM+sxh mDr eqfYtekuksa ls ekufld :i ls ijskku gksdj esjs th;kth fkoyky th iVsy ,MoksdsV us vkRe gR;k dj yh gSA

vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd mDr eqfYtekuksa ds f[kykQ rqjUr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh QjekosaA**

During investigation, the police has recorded the statements of various persons and has collected certain documents.

(3). The facts which have appeared in the investigation are:-

(i) Deceased Shivlal was counsel for Rooplal Harijan in a criminal case pending in the Court of Shri Rameshwar Lal Rohita, Juridical Magistrate, Aaspur (petitioner);

(ii) Rooplal did not appear on a date of hearing, which resulted in the forfeiture or the bail bonds furnished by him and initiation of proceedings u/s. 446 Cr.P.C. On appearance of Roop Lal, the Judicial Magistrate disposed of the proceedings u/Sec. 446 Cr.P.C. by imposing a penalty of Rs. 50/-. On the deposit of penalty, Receipt No. 21536 for Rs.50/- was issued.

(iii) On 9.10.98, Rooplal filed a written complaint before the Judicial Magistrate (petitioner) that his advocate Shivlal (deceased)had taken Rs.1000/- from him telling him that he was fined for Rs.500/-, and that Rs.500/- were to be paid to the Judge. On this complaint, the Magistrate proceeded to hold enquiry under Chapter-XV Cr.P.C. The statement of Rooplal was recorded on that very day and the case was directed to be listed on 13.11.98.

(iv) Before the next date of hearing i.e. 13.11.98 the Magistrate received a copy of an application, purported to have been filed by Rooplal in the Court of District Judge, wherein it was stated that he had lodged false complaint against his Advocate Shivlal at the instance of some persons.

(v) On 13.11.98 Rooplal was not present in Court. When that application came to the notice of the Judicial Magistrate (petitioner) he directed the issuance of notice to Rooplal u/s.344 Cr.P.C. for 29.1.99. On 29.1.99 Rooplal appeared in Court. His further statement u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate.

(vi) Shivlal, on coming to know that a case had been filed against him, put in an application before the District and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur on 11.2.99 for the transfer of the case from the file of Judicial Magistrate, Aaspur to any other court. The District Judge directed the office to obtain comments of the officer concerned.

(vii) The letter requiring comments reached the Magistrate (Petitioner) on 24.2.99. The same day, he sent his comments denying the allegations made in the transfer application. At the same time, he stated that he had no objection to the transfer of the case from his Court. He however emphasized that Shivlal Advocate had misconducted when he extracted money from his client.

(viii) On 6.4.99 deceased Advocate Shivlal Patel filed an application in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document