CHETNA SURANA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, on 23-9-2005 that she purchased the suit property bearing Khasra Nos.257/581, 257/584 and 258/225, total area 2.101 hectares from M/s. Natural Estates on 29- 5-2003 by registered sale deed and got it mutated in the revenue records, but the accused persons therein namely Harsh Kumar Jain, Rajendra Kumar Jain, Premraj Jain and D.P. Gandhi, on the basis of false affidavit, got it recorded in the name of M/s. Natural Estates and thereby committed the offence, therefore, criminal case be registered against them and they be punished. The Station House Officer, Police Station Gol Bazaar, Raipur registered the offence under Sections 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC against them and investigated the matter and thereafter, submitted closure report on 14-7-2008 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur / jurisdictional criminal court. The said court after hearing the concerned, came to a specific conclusion that no offences have been committed by the accused therein, as Civil Suit No.88A/2005 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration and there is no reasonable ground for proceeding further on the basis of first information report so lodged and accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offence and discharged the accused persons therein.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against that order, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Revision No.244/2008 in the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 4-11-2009 affirming the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the meanwhile, the Station House Officer, Police Station Gol Bazaar, Raipur, filed Istegasha No.1/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur that the petitioner has deliberately in order to harass the accused therein got the offences registered which has been closed by the jurisdictional criminal court and the report / complaint of the petitioner was found untrue and thereby she has committed the offence under Sections 182 & 211 of the IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 9-12-2009 took cognizance of the above- stated offences and issued notice to the petitioner.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner by way of W.P.(Cr.)No.2147/2010 questioned the orders dated 16-9-2008 and 4-11-2009 dismissing the criminal revision and also the order taking cognizance on 9-12- 2009, before this Court. This Court by order dated 27-3-2012, affirmed the order of the revisional Court dated 4-11-2009 by which the closure report has been accepted, but the order taking cognizance dated 9-12-2009 was set aside only on the ground that it does not reflect the application of mind and declined to accept the ground that the criminal complaint is incompetent which was raised on the basis of the provisions contained in Sections 195(1)(a) & (b) of the CrPC and remitted the matter to the Judicial Magistrate First Class for passing fresh order in light of the decision so rendered therein. Thereafter, on 21-9-2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur again took cognizance of the offences under Sections 182 & 211 of the IPC against the petitioner which was assailed by the petitioner by way of criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the CrPC which was dismissed on 5- 3-2013 finding no merit. Now, feeling aggrieved against the order taking cognizance dated 21-9-2012 as well as the revisional order dated 5-3-2013, this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been preferred stating that no offences are made out against the petitioner and Istegasha No.1/2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for offence under Sections 182 & 211 of the IPC deserves to be quashed.