ASHOK AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Revision No. 76/2014, which in its turn, directed against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Ratlam in Criminal Case No. 2274/2011, dated 11-4-2014. The facts necessary for disposal of this application are that on 29-8-2011, a charge sheet was filed under Section 188 of IPC on the ground that the present applicant promulgated the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and in violation of the order, he sold textbook and notebook. By the impugned order dated 11-4-2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate considered the charge sheet and the objection raised by the present applicant that without any complaint filed by the District Magistrate, cognizance cannot be taken by the Magistrate under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.. The learned Courts below observed that the District Magistrate, Rajendra Sharma addressed a letter dated 23-8-2011 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam and it was expected in the letter that the Court would take cognizance of the offence. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court delivered in, the case of State of M.P. and others v. Jyotiraditya Sindhiya, 2014 1 JabLJ 326, the case of the present applicant before the Lower Court was that the cognizance under Section 188 of IPC cannot be taken on charge sheet filed by the police and can be taken only on the complaint filed by the District Magistrate whose order was disobeyed. However, the Revisional Court observed that in none of the cases cited by the present applicant before him, the complaint as was present in the form of letter dated 23-8-2011 was present, and therefore, the Revisional Court observed that due to the letter dated 23-8-2011, the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was legal and no interference is called for. Under that premise, the revision was dismissed.

(2.) I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench delivered in the case of Jyotiraditya Sindhiya , wherein it was held that the offence cannot be registered by police in view of the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. under Section 188 of IPC The Division Bench also relied upon the principles laid down by the Appellate Court delivered in the case of C. Muniappan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 9 SCC 567, and held that without complaint as defined by Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., cognizance cannot be taken under Section 188 of IPC. Applying ratio of the case of Jyotiraditya Sindhiya , I find that cognizance could not be taken by the Magistrate on the basis of FIR registered by police in Crime No. 124/2011. The defects cannot be cured merely by a letter by the District Magistrate addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In such situation, I find that this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court and the Judicial Magistrate are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 76/2014, dated 19-6-2014 and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 2274/2011, dated 11-4-2014 are set aside. The FIR arising out of Crime No. 124/2011 registered by Police Station, Station Road, Ratlam under Section 188 of IPC is quashed and also the proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 2274/2011 are quashed. The present applicant is discharged from the charge under Section 188 of IPC.