CHANDA KHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against an order dated 27-9-1996 passed by the then VIth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 2171/IX/96, State v. Chanda Khan and 13 others relating to case Crime No. 9 of 1996, under Sections 420/467/468/471, I.P.C., Police Station Sureer, District Mathura, whereby he rejected the application of the accused-revisionists that the cognizance of the case by him was barred by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The relevant portion of Section 195, Cr. P. C. is as under :-

(3.) In this revision, an interesting question has arisen as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One Hakim alias Habib died. On his death, mutation application was moved before the Tehsildar, Manth, District Mathura (Revenue Court). The said application was registered as Case No. 246 of 1995 under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act for mutation on the basis of a Will-deed dated 15-2-1995 alleged to be executed by Hakim alias Habib deceased. According to the revisionists, the death took place on 14-4-1995 and before that on 15-2-1995 the deceased Hakim executed the Will in favour of revisionists. On 5-1-1996, opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kishar Jahan moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Mathura on which basis case crime No. 9 of 1996, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. was registered. The allegations were that the said Will was a forged document and that the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471, I.P.C. were committed by the present accused-revisionists. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the accused-revisionists were ordered to be summoned by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 21-6-1996. The learned counsel for the accused-revisionists moved an application before the learned Magistrate claiming that the jurisdiction of Magistrate to take the cognizance was barred under Section 195, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate rejected the application by the impugned order dated 27-9-1996 holding that if a forgery has been committed in respect of any document before its filing in Court a complaint by concerned Court is not needed and that the Magistrate could take cognizance at the instance of a private party. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred by the accused-revisionists.