JAGANNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by order dated 9th August, 2010 passed in Sessions Case No. 152/2010 by the Third additional Sessions Judge Vidisha (M.P.), thereby the trial dudge framed the charges against petitioner for commission of offence under Section 467, 468. 471 and Section 199 of I .P.C., the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) The facts, in nutshell as unfolded in the record of trial Court, are that on 28th January 2010, the petitioner appeared before the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate Vidisha (M.P.) as surety in favour of accused person Raj Bahadur Singh Chauhan @ Golu in connection with Crime No 69/10 registered against the accused for committing an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. While acting as surety for the accused, the petitioner at the time of giving bail, filed his affidavit, bail declaration form and title document of the Land Record Right Book "Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustaka" before the court. On enquiry by the court concerned, it is transpired that the surety-accused petitioner was unknown to the accused of the crime. He was not competent for furnishing bail for accused. The petitioner submitted the false declaration form and also filed the false affidavit in support of the said declaration. The court immediately conducted the inquiry. The statements of the witnesses, were recorded Thereafter, the trial Magistrate sent the report for conducting the investigation. Accordingly, a case was registered at Crime No.51/10 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 205, and 471 of I.P.C. before the criminal court. Since offence under Section 471 of I.P.C. was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Vidisha. On committal, the trial was commenced before the Third Additional Sessions Judge Vidisha. The learned Judge framed the charges against petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 199 of I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred seeking quashment of framing of charge and the criminal proceedings pursuant there to which are pending before the same court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if all the statements as appeared from the documents and statements filed with the charge-sheet are taken to be true, even then, the ingredients of the above offences are not made out. The trial Magistrate, before whom the charge-sheet is filed, did not in compliance of the provisions of Section 195 (l)(b), hold any enquiry and straightway made the complaint to the concerning police station for conducting investigation, , whereas it is contemplated in the said provisions that no court shall take cognizance of the aforesaid offence except on the complaint in writing of that court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. The procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 is further laid down which requires mandatorily that the concerning court after holding preliminary enquiry made a complaint thereof in writing and sent it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. No such procedure has been followed in the present case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, the Sessions court without applying its mind in this regard also framed the charges. It is further submitted that during investigation it was gathered that the land in question was recorded in the name of the petitioner in revenue papers, thus it can not be said that the forged document was prepared by the petitioner. Hence, it was requested that the charges as framed by the Sessions court be set aside by quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused.