BACCHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2013 passed by the First ASJ, Morena, in S.T. No.279/2012, whereby charges under Sections 419 read with Section 114 and 468 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the Code of 1860) were framed, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code).

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that an execution Case No.23/88/96 was pending in the Court of District Judge, Morena, against the petitioner. The said case was filed for recovery of decreetal amount in compliance of ex-parte order dated 14.2.1994 passed in Case No.23/88. During execution proceeding, the petitioner, judgment debtor, filed an application stating that he has submitted an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree which has been registered as Misc. Suit No.33/97, hence, till decision of that suit, the execution proceeding be stayed. The application of the petitioner was accepted and it was directed that if the petitioner furnishes a surety of Rs.1,76,000/-, the execution proceeding shall be stayed till decision of Misc. Suit No.33/97. Thereafter, the petitioner on 3.12.97 furnished the surety in the name of Jaswant Singh. After disposal of Misc. Suit No.33/97 on 16.8.99, District Judge, Morena, directed in the execution case to proceed further. In compliance of the order, a notice was issued to the surety for depositing the amount of surety bond. Thereafter, Jaswant Singh appeared before the Court and submitted that he has not furnished any surety on behalf of the petitioner and some other person has furnished the surety using his name. On the direction of the Court, Shri Krishanveer Singh, Reader of the Court, sent a written report to T.I. Kotwali, Distt. Morena, on which Crime No.200/10 was registered under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471/181 of the Code of 1860 at police Station, Kotwali, Distt. Morena. After investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of CJM which committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge. Thereafter, learned Ist ASJ, Morena vide impugned order dated 25.6.2013 framed the aforesaid charges, hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the alleged forged and fabricated surety was presented before the District Court and in such type of matters provisions of Section 195 of the Code are attracted and provisions of Section 340 of the Code is to be followed and according to those provisions, no Police report can be lodged, but only that Court can file a private complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that in this case complaint against the petitioner was sent to the Police Station by one Krishna Veer Singh and after registration of the FIR and investigation, Police has filed the charge- sheet against the petitioner, that is in violation of the provisions of Section 195 and Section 340 of the Code. In addition, it is further submitted that in the present matter, no private complaint was filed by the concerning Court and case is initiated on the Police report, which is not permissible under the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 of the Code. In continuation, it is also submitted that ingredients of Section 340 of the Code are not fulfilled and hence, the FIR and further proceedings therefrom deserve to be quashed.