LAXMI NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Gupta, J. One Bhagwati Singh died issueless leaving behind some agricul tural land. Laxmi Narain Singh, petitioner and Jwala Singh, opposite party No. 2 also come under the same family tree. On the death of Bhagwati Singh, petitioner moved an application for mutation before the Tehsildar, Tarabganj, District Gonda under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act on a printed form. The property of Bhag wati Singh was situated in village Sidhauti but the petitioner mentioned the name of village as Amauthi. Besides it, in the column meant for deceased he mentioned the first name Raj Narain and second name Bhagwati Singh. He did not show that Jwala Singh, opposite party no. 2 was also an interested party. This mutation application was given onthebasis of a Will said to have been executed by Bhagwati Singh in favour of the petitioner. In the column for entering the name of the heirs; first name mentioned by the petitioner was Ram Prakash son of Ram Pher. On the other hand, opposite party N. 2 has also moved a mutation application in respect of the same property which was pending in the Court of Naib Tehsildar on the basis of Will said to have been executed in favour of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application before Tehsildar that the petitioner had practiced fraud and cheating by framing the mutation ap plication in the manner that the real objec tor may not come forward and the property may also not be correctly identified. It may also not be possible to find out who was the deceased and regarding which property mutation application was given. The Tbh-sildar after hearing both the parties by means of a detailed order dated 25-2-1989 directed that a complaint be lodged against the petitioner. Accordingly, com plaint was filed against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate summoned him under Sections 419/420/467/468/471, I. P. C. and in pursuance of summoning order petitioner has appeared before the said Court.

(2.) THE case was adjourned on several dates for various reasons and it was or dered that the case be listed for evidence under Section 244, Cr. P. C. When this case came to the notice of opposite party No. 2, he moved an application that the case has to be disposed of as if it was instituted on the police report. Learned Magistrate passed an order fixing a date for framing of charge. Aggrieved by this order dated 30-1 -1998, petitioner had approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

(3.) IN view of the above, it is held that Sections 200 to 203, Cr. P. C. are not applicable to a case instituted on the com plaint by a Public servant or a Court. Similarly, that complaint has to be proceeded with as if it was instituted on a police report. Although, it is not necessary to clarify, but in order to obviate any con fusion it is directed that the complainant has a right under Section 239, Cr. P. C. to contend before the learned Magistrate that enough material does not exist for framing of charge against him.