R K SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions have been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 1.2.2012 passed by JMFC, Shivpuri in Cri.Case No.273/2012, whereby cognizance under Section 193, 211 of IPC has been taken against the petitioners of both the petitions on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent for crime No.1/2012.

(2.) Brief facts of the cases are that on 17.11.2005 Shri R.K.Shrivastava, Assistant Engineer, NREGS, Shivpuri, has lodged a report at P.S.Survaya against one Roop Singh alleging that 40.04 Quintals of wheat meant for distribution of the labours engaged in WBM Road Dakia-Khutaila Road was distributed and the rest of the wheat about 250 Quintals was kept in the house belonging to Roop Singh taken on rent @ Rs.500/- per month. On 2.2.2005 wheat was physically verified. When complainant on 17.11.2005 went to the spot, he saw there was no lock on the godown and wheat was also not found there. On being questioned, Roop Singh has not given any satisfactory explanation. On this Crime No.53/2005 under Section 406 of IPC has been registered and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed against Roop Singh before the CJM, Shivpuri. During trial in Cri.Case No.791/2006 petitioners of both these petitions were examined as prosecution witnesses. After conclusion of the trial Roop Singh was acquitted by the learned CJM, Shivpuri by giving him benefit of doubt. However, in para 30 of the judgment learned trial Court recorded the findings that petitioners of both petitions have given false evidence with an intention to harm the accused and also fabricated the evidence and false charges, hence they be prosecuted under Section 211 and 193 of IPC by way of filing separate complaint. In view of the order learned CJM, Shivpuri filed a private complaint against the petitioners of both petitions under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. in its own Court, which was registered as Cri.Case No.1853/2009. On the same day learned CJM has taken cognizance against the petitioners of both petitions and case was fixed for their appearance on 19.1.2010. Being aggrieved by the judgment the petitioners preferred petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which were numbered as M.Cr.C.No.5317/2010 (R.K.Shrivastava and another Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C.No.4785/2010 (G.Sunaiya and others Vs. State of M.P.) and M.Cr.C.No.3211/2010 (Rajeev Pande Vs. State of M.P.), wherein proceedings of the Cri.Case No.1853/2009 were quashed. However, respondent State of M.P. has filed the proceedings in compliance with the direction passed in the judgment dated 30.11.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners of both these petitions preferred M.Cr.C.No.6823/2012 (R.K.Shrivastava and others Vs. State of M.P.) and M.Cr.C.No.8029/2012 (G.Sunaiya and others Vs. State of M.P.).

(3.) It is submitted that in pursuance of judgment passed by the learned CJM, Shivpuri on 30.11.2009 in Cri.Case No.791/2006 learned CJM, Shivpuri has also filed a private complaint against the petitioners of both the petitions under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and separate Cri.Case No.1853/2009 has been registered against the petitioners of both petitions therefore on the complaint of police order taking cognizance for offence against the petitioners as per the observations and direction passed by learned CJM in the judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed in Cri.Case No.791/2006 is liable to be set aside because petitioners cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. It is further submitted that as this Court has allowed the M.Cr.C.No.5317/2010 (R.K.Shrivastava and another Vs. State of M.P.), M.Cr.C.No.4785/2010 (G.Sunaiya and others Vs. State of M.P.) and M.Cr.C.No.3211/2010 (Rajeev Pande Vs. State of M.P.) vide order dated 7.1.2013 holding that the order dated 23.12.2009 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 211 and 193 of IPC by learned CJM for giving false evidence and the complaint is not justified as it has been passed without considering the fact that there was no mens ria behind the evidence of so called forged false evidence although there is no false evidence given by any of the petitioners as they have not turned hostile and enquiry was conducted by them, therefore, the order directing filing of complaint against the petitioners and consequential impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners on the basis of complaint filed under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are bad in law. It is submitted that on the basis of direction and observation in para 30, no further proceedings would have been initiated or taken into consideration in view of the fact that the said order is already under challenge and stayed by this Court. It is prayed that the order dated 1.2.2012 passed by JMFC, Shivpuri and the proceedings of Cri.Case No.273/2012 pending in the Court of JMFC, Shivpuri be quashed.