RAJENDRA MATHUR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 15th November 2010, passed on an unregistered Complaint Case No.00/2010, preferred by the respondent No.2-Lokendra, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri (M.P.), thereby directing the In-charge Inspector of the Police Station Shivpuri, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to lodge the FIR and after investigation in the matter submit the report.

(2.) Facts, in brief, as appear from the petition, are that the petitioner, r/o Village Berad, Tahsil Pohari was working as Panchayat Karmi/ Panchayat Secretary in the Gram panchayat Goverdhan, Tahsil Pohari District Shivpuri (M.P.). For his long absence due to his involvement in some other, criminal case, by Resolution, dated 14th November 2004, passed by the Village Panchayat Gowardhan, the petitioner was removed from services of Panchayat Karmi/' Panchayat Secy, and in his place respondent No.2-Lokendra was appointed. The said Resolution was challenged by filing an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer Pohari and by allowing the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 21st August 2006, the impugned resolution was put to an end by the appellate court. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The order of Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged by the respondent No.2 before this court in several rounds, i.e., Writ Petition No. 4536/2006, Writ Appeal No.211/2009, R.P. No. 244/2009 and lastly again in Writ Petition No. 1334/2010. All the proceedings as said above, were proved fruitless. Consequently, the respondent No.2 filed the complaint under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shivpuri alleging that during the period of absence w.ei. 2nd October 2004 to 2nd November 2004, the petitioner was in jail and the false and fictitious medical certificates including of fitness for the aforesaid dates were prepared by the petitioner and produced to prove his bona fide absence. The respondent No.2 alongwith the complaint before the Magistrate filed all those documents. The iearned Magistrate by passing the impugned order directed the In-charge Inspector of the Police Station to register the FIR against petitioner and after investigation submit the report before the court concerned.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the said impugned order on the grounds that the offences complained in the complaint under Section 420. 467, 468, 471 and 474 of l.P.C. were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, so the learned Magistrate committed the gross-negligence by over-ridding the provisions under Section 202 (l)(a) Cr.P.C. and directed the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Shivpuri to lodge the FIR and investigate and then submit the report. The petitioner is in fear that the Investigating Officer shall cause his arrest for the alleged offence on account of which his services shall be affected adversely. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex court-in the cases of Mona Pawar v. High Court of Judicature & others, 2011 3 SCC 496. Neelu Chopra & another v. Bhart, 2009 10 SCC 184 Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., 2008 17 SCC 157. Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & an-other, 2008 12 SCC 531 Ashok Chaturuedi & another v. Shital H. Chanchani & another, 1998 7 SCC 698. Ashwin Kumar Roy v. Vipin Bhai & another, 1998 1 SCC 133. Makru Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & another, 2008 5 SCC 668 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v Special Judicial Magistrate., 1998 5 SCC 749.