Back
2003(1) JLJ 282
N.S. Azad, J.
Phoolchand Mishra
Versus
State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 1954 of 2002; against tile order of Ku. Tripti Kholia. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, passed in Criminal Case No. 475 of 1999;
Decided on : 10.5.2002.
Petitioner filed an objection in Criminal Case No. 475/99, seeking his discharge on the ground that the learned JMFC could not have taken cognizance against him u/s 190 of the CrPC. This objection petition stood disposed of by JMFC on 16.8.2001, wherein she framed charge also against this petitioner u/s 468 of the IPC. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 16.8.2001 in Criminal Revision No. 280/2001, before II ASJ, Jabalpur, who recorded this finding on 13.10.2001 that at the time of taking cognizance against this petitioner u/s 190 of the Code, stage of taking the cognizance was not crossed and hence merely by making an observation in order dated 22.10.1999 that the petitioner has to be proceeded against u/s 319 of the Code, the order of taking cognizance is not found to have been vitiated.
Thereafter, this petitioner sought quashment of proceeding in Criminal Case No. 475/99 by filing an application u/s 461(m) of the Code, which again was rejected by the learned JMFC on 14.3.2002. Now the petitioner seeks quashment of aforesaid Criminal Case No. 475/99, in exercise of inherent powers. [Paras 4 & 5]
Held: Since at the time of filing police report against Devendra Kumar Dubey, the police Madan Mahal did not file the report dated 16.4.1996 to Government examiner of questioned Documents, therefore, Magistrate‘s consideration of police report after its receipt and then issuance of show-cause notice to this petitioner against his impleadment as an accused, though making reference of proceeding against him u/s 319 of the Code, shall be treated to be the stage of taking cognizance u/s 190(1) (b) of the Code.
Thus, the learned JMFC is found to have committed no illegality in this case by taking cognizance of offence punishable u/s 468 of the IPC against this petitioner on 31.3.2001 under the aforesaid circumstances, inspite of making this observation in order dated 22.10.1999 that the petitioner has to be proceeded u/s 319 of the Code. Commentary on CrPC by P.C. Sarkar Page 563 relied on. AIR 1968 SC 177, AIR 1989 SC 885, AIR 1967 SC 1167 and AIR 1978 SC 1568 followed. XII 1990 (3) Crimes 678 dissented from. [Paras 8 & 9
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 190(1) (b) and 170 -- cognizance of offence under S. 190(1) (b) -- cannot be taken on incomplete police report. Sarkar‘s Commentary on CrPC Page 561 relied on. [Para 8
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 190¼1½¼[k½] 161 rFkk 173 && eftLVªsV vius le{k Qkby dh xbZ iqfyl fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds fo:) vijk/k dk laKku dj ldrk gS && og iqfyl }kjk vfHkfyf[kr dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh vfHk;qDr dks la;ksftr dj ldrk gSA ;kph us nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 475@99 esa bl vk/kkj ij viuh mUeqfDr dh bZIlk djrs gq, vk{ksi Qkby fd;k fd fo}ku U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh }kjk mlds fo:) naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 190 ds v/khu laKku ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA 16-8-2001 dks U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh }kjk bldk fuiVkjk fd;k x;k ftlesa mUgksaus bl ;kph ds fo:) Hkh naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 468 ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr fd;kA ;kph us f}rh; vij ls‘ku U;k;k/kh‘k] tcyiqj ds le{k nkfMd iqujh{k.k Ø- 280@2001 esa vkns‘k fnukad 16-8-2001 dks vlQy pqukSrh nhA f}rh; vij ls‘ku U;k;k/kh‘k us 18-10-2001 dks ;g fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr fd;k fd bl ;kph ds fo:) lafgrk dh /kkjk 190 ds v/khu laKku djrs le; laKku djus dk izØe ikj ugha gqvk Fkk] vr%] vkns‘k fnukad 22-10-1999 esa dsoy ;g fVIi.kh djus ds dkj.k fd ;kph ds fo:) lafgrk dh /kkjk 219 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh dh tkuk gksxh] laKku djus dk vkns‘k nwf"kr ugha ik;k x;kA rRi‘pkr~ bl ;kph us lafgrk dh /kkjk 461 ¼M½ ds v/khu vkosnu Qkby dj nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 475@99 esa dk;Zokgh ds vfHk[kaMu dh bZIlk dh] tks iqu% fo}ku U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh }kjk 14-3-2002 dks ukeatwj dj nh xbZA vc ;kph varfufgZr ‘kfDr ds iz;ksx ls iwoksZDr nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 475@99 ds vfHk[kaMu dh bZIlk dj jgk gSA ¿ iSjk 4 ,oa 5 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % D;ksafd nsosanz dqekj nqcs ds fo:) iqfyl fjiksVZ Qkby djus ds le; iqfyl] enu egy }kjk ljdkjh iz‘uxr nLrkost ijh{kd dks fjiksVZ fnukad 16-4-1996 Qkby ugha dh xbZ Fkh] blfy, iqfyl fjiksVZ dh izkfIr ij eftLVªsV }kjk ml ij fopkj fd;k tkuk rFkk bl ;kph dks vfHk;qDr ds :i eas mlds la;kstu ds fo:) dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dk tkjh fd;k tkuk] ;|fi mlesa mlds fo:) lafgrk dh /kkjk 319 ds v/ku dk;Zokgh dk funsZ‘k fd;k x;k gS] lafgrk dh /kkjk 190¼1½¼[k½ ds v/khu laKku djus dk izØe ekuk tk,xkA bl izdkj] bl ekeys esa fo}ku U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh }kjk] vkns‘k fnukad 22-10-1999 esa ;g fVIi.kh djus ds ckotwn fd ;kph ds fo:) lafgrk dh /kkjk 319 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh dh tkuk gksxh] iwoksZDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa 31-3-2001 dks bl ;kph ds fo:) naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 468 ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/k dk laKku dj dksbZ voS/ku ugha fd, tkus dk fu"d"kZ fudyrk gSA ih-lh- ljdkj d`r desaVjh vku lhvkj ih lh i`"B 563 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1968 ,l lh 177] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 885] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1167 rFkk , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 1568 vuqlfjrA ckjg 1990¼3½ ØkbEl 678 folEerA ¿ iSjk 8 ,oa 9 ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 190¼1½¼[k½ rFkk 170 && /kkjk 190¼1½¼[k½ ds v/khu vijk/k dk laKku && viw.kZ iqfyl fjiksVZ ij ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ljdkj d`r desaVjh vku lhvkj ih lh i`"B 561 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 8
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance of an offence u/s 190(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, passed by JMFC Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No. 475/99 on 31.3.2001, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court, seeking discharge in exercise of inherent powers, when his subsequent objection raised u/s 461(m) of Code was turned down on 14.3.2002.
2. A perusal of certified copy of order dated 22.10.1999 passed by Ku. Tripti Kholia, JMFC, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 475/99, discloses that on 22nd October, 1999, a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against one Devendra Kumar Dubey, by police Madan Mahal, Dist. Jabalpur, for offences punishable u/s 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC with these allegations that he prepared a false revenue case No. 2645-A/90 (b-9)/89-90 and forged an order dated 12.5.1990, purporting to have been passed by Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, permitting sale of some land. According to the prosecution, Devendra Kumar forged a notification purported to have been issued u/s. 26 of the Act, 1976, by forging the signatures of competent authority appointed under the Act and thereby made an attempt to sell the land of his possession. This notification was submitted to the Competent Authority by one Laxmi Narayan Dubey. On an enquiry, the fact of forgery came to the knowledge of the Competent Authority under the Act, who lodged the FIR at police station Madan Mahal, Jabalpur. During the course of investigation, specimen signatures of this petitioner, Phoolchand were obtained and sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Police Headquarters, Bhopal, on 13.11.1995, along with his standard hand-writing and questioned signatures. In report dated 16.4.1996, the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, opined that the questioned handwriting (signature) appears to be that of this petitioner Phoolchand Mishra. Police Madan Mahal did not file this report of Government Examniner of Questioned Documents dated 16.4.1996, along with Police report submitted u/s. 173 of the CrPC. A photocopy of certified copy of order dated 18.10.2001 passed by IInd ASJ Jabalpur, in petitioner's Criminal Revision No. 280/2001, reveals that the learned Magistrate called the report of State Examiner of Questioned Document before the stage of framing the charge and thereafter by order dated 22.10.1999, while discharging Devendra Kumar Dubey, this petitioner was ordered to be proceeded with under section 319 of the Code, by her.
3. On notice been served, the petitioner appeared before the Court of JMFC on 28.3.2001. The same day petitioner's counsel was heard on show cause notice and the case was fixed for orders on 31.3.2001. On 31.3.2001, the learned JMFC passed an order to the following effect:
"In order dated 22.10.1999, though it is stated that said Phoolchand has to be proceeded against u/s 319 of the CrPC but at present, it seems desirable to take cognizance against him u/s 190 of the CrPC."
4. Then this petitioner filed an objection in aforesaid Criminal Case No. 475/99, seeking his discharge on the ground that the learned JMFC could not have taken cognizance against him u/s 190 of the CrPC. This objection petition stood disposed of by JMFC on 16.8.2001, wherein she framed charge also against this petitioner u/s 468 of the IPC. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 16.8.2001, in Criminal Revision No. 280/2001, before I1nd ASJ, Jabalpur, who recorded this finding on 13.10.2001 that at the time of taking cognizance against this petitioner u/s 190 of the Code, stage of taking the cognizance was not crossed and hence merely by making an observation in order dated 22.10.1999 that the petitioner has to be proceeded against u/s. 319 of the Code, the order of taking cognizance is not found to have been vitiated.
5. Thereafter, this petitioner sought quashment
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
