BENI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 197 of 1975, Sarif v. Som Prakash and Ors. , pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Nakur, district Saharanpur in a case Under Sections 120-B, 193 and 205 I. P. C. The opposite party Zarif filed a complaint to the effect that some persons had impersonated him before the Assistant Collector (Tahsildar) on 24-7-1974 by moving an application for issue of Bhumidhari Sanad and had wrongly obtained the Sanad by applying a fraud upon the Tahsildar. The complaint was filed against Beni Prasad petitioner and several persons on the ground that they had conspired and set up an imposter for obtaining Bhumidhari Sanad. These persons had identified that imposter as Zarif before the Assistant Collector. The learned Magistrate held enquiry Under Section 202 Cr. P. C, and summoned the petitioner and the other accused persons Under Sections 120-B, 193 and 205 I. P. C, An objection was raised on behalf of the accused persons that Under Section 195 Sub-section (b) (1) Cr. P. C. cognizance of the offence Under Sections 193 and 205 I. P. C. could not be taken by any court except on the complaint in writing of the court in relation to which such offence was committed Under Section 195 (1) (a) (iii ). Similarly, complaint with regard to the conspiracy is to be filed by a public servant or any public servant to whom that public servant is a subordinate. The learned Magistrate rejected the objection on the finding that Assistant Collector was not a court. The Sessions Judge agreed with this finding and dismissed criminal revisions Nos. 15 of 1976 and 25 of 1976. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

(2.) IT is now well settled that this Court can interfere Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. if the complaint suffers from some legal defect, such as want of sanction, complaint not by legally competent authority (Vide Smt Nagawwa v. Verannashivalingappa Kanjalgi and R. P. Kapoor's case reported in.

(3.) THEREFORE, the only point that arises for decision is whether the Assistant Collector acting Under Section 134 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act acts as a court. Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, court is defined as follows :--Court includes all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence.