DILIP KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. RAM KUMAR CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 25.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, in Criminal Revision No.192/06, affirming the order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, in Criminal Complaint Case No.619/06, whereby the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara has discharged the respondent substantially on the ground that the alleged forged document has been filed during the course of judicial proceeding, therefore, complaint at the instance of private party in absence of any complaint on behalf of the Court concern in terms of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code was not maintainable.

(2.) As per nutshell case of the complainant/applicant, the respondent, then Patwari has committed forgery of his report and has filed the same before the revenue proceeding i.e. in a proceeding before the Court and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 463, 467, 468 and 420 read with Section 427 of the IPC. On the basis of complaint criminal case punishable for the aforesaid offences has been registered against the respondent. Charge was framed. Same was challenged before the revisional Court and the revisional Court while reversing the order has directed the Court to hear the parties and framed appropriate charge. After hearing the parties the trial Court has discharged the respondent substantially on the ground that forged document has been filed in a judicial proceeding by the respondent, therefore, complaint by the Court was sine qua non in terms of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code. In absence of such complaint the Court was not competent to frame the charge or take cognizance at the instance of private complainant. Even the trial Court has considered that the respondent has also punished in departmental inquiry for his act. Same was challenged before the revisional Court and the revisional Court has affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned, copy of the complaint and copy of other documents.