RAJEEV PANDE Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M..Cr.C. No.3211/2010 (Rajeev Pande Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C. No.4785/2010 ( G. Sunaiya & Ors Vs. State of M.P.) and M.Cr.C.No.5317/2010 (R.K.Shrivastava and another Vs. State of M.P.) for quashing the order dated 23.12.2009 by which taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 211 and 293 of IPC and quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.1853/2009 filed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Shivpuri, M.P. under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri, M.P. passed the judgment on 30.11.2009 in Criminal Case No.791/2006 against accused Roop Singh, who has been tried for the offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC for theft of wheat from the Government Godown in village Mohamadpur, district Shivpuri M.P. Petitioner Rajeev Pandey has been examined in the case as P.W -3, petitioner G.S. Sunaiya has been examined as PW -4, petitioner Upendra Singh Sengar has been examined as PW -5, petitioner Tarun Kumar Katare has been examined as PW -9, petitioner R.K. Shrivastava has been examined as PW -1 and petitioner Suryaprakash Singh has been examined as PW -2. Learned trial Court while passing the judgment has observed in paragraph 30 of the judgment that petitioners have given false statement before the Court by making false allegation against the accused, therefore, a complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 211 and 193 of IPC be filed against the witnesses(petitioners). Thereafter, complaint has been filed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri, M.P. which was registered as Criminal Case No.1853/2009 in which cognizance has been taken by order dated 23.11.2009 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri, himself.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that no notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners before filing of complaint against them. It is further submitted that taking cognizance by Chief Judicial Magistrate himself on his own complaint is also not sustainable in law. On merits, it is further submitted that the petitioners who are government servants after due enquiry have found that wheat for distributing amongst the labourers was kept in the godown of accused Roop Singh which was not found in the godown at the time of inspection by the petitioner R.K. Shrivastava alongwith the petitioners. Physical verification of the wheat was done by the petitioners Upendra Singh Sengar, Tarun Kumar Katare and G. Sunaiya who were Chief Executive Officers and Project Officers respectively. Report was immediately lodged by petitioner R.K. Shrivastava. It is further submitted on merits that none of the petitioners have turned hostile at the time of evidence before the trial Court. It is further submitted that learned trial Court has gone into technicality by considering the question that whether house of accused was taken on rental by the Government over looking the fact that wheat was kept in the house of accused which was found missing at the time of inspection.