V S KSHETRIYA Vs. PRADEEPDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of above mentioned two applications, as common question of fact and law are involved in these applications.

(2.) THE applicants have preferred the present applications under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of the complaint case No.260/2003 registered by JMFC Sidhi (thereafter case was transferred to another Magistrate and it was registered as a criminal case No.668/2008 before the JMFC Shri R.S.Madia) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 166, 167, 468 and 420 of IPC. THE applicants have also challenged the order dated 6.5.2008 passed by the JMFC Sidhi (Shri Kalicharan) and the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the JMFC Sidhi (Shri R.S.Madia) by which the complaint was registered and arrest warrants were issued against the applicants.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submits that applicant Tejbali Singh was Assistant Engineer, Chitrangi, whereas applicant V.S.Kshetriya was Sub Engineer, Chitrangi. If entire documents and statements of various witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. are perused, then there is no evidence to show that the respondent plied his tractor for work of that road. It is nowhere established by the respondent that who prepared the muster role. If muster role is perused, then it would be clear that payment was made in that muster role to the labours, who worked as a labour in that work. The muster role does not relate with the payment of overt-act as shown by the respondent in his complaint. Secondly, it is nowhere established that who prepared the muster role. It was for the complainant to show the muster role of payment or any duty certificate that he plied his tractor and with the help of such tractor he transported murram and gitti for 5 ? days.