MANJALT @ MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under section 482, CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in Criminal Case No. 502/2001 on 14.3.2002, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under section 195 CrPC and has also challenged the legality of the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 52/2002 by III Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, on 4.7.2002, whereby the revisional Court has dismissed the revision.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a criminal case was pending in the Court of JMFC, Vidisha, against the petitioner No.1. Due to his nonappearance in that criminal case, the warrants of arrest were issued against him. Subsequently, he appeared and he was directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds. Petitioner No.2 was the surety in the case. The learned Magistrate found that on 9.3.1999, petitioner No.2 appeared before the Court of ACJM, Vidisha, and produced the sale -deed dated 16.7.1996 of Mohar Singh s/o Bhanwar Singh and impersonated himself as Mohar Singh s/o Bhanwar Singh. The trial Court rejected the aforesaid document of surety bond and directed Police Station Dehat, Dist. Vidisha, to register the crime and investigate the matter. Later on, the matter was investigated and charge -sheet was filed under sections 205, 419, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, IPC against the petitioners. In the course of trial, petitioner submitted an application and prayed that procedure laid down under section 195 read with section 340, CrPC is required to be followed in this case. Since the procedure has not been followed, the trial deserves to be dropped. But the trial Court as well the revisional Court both rejected the application, against which the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the charge -sheet on the ground that the trial Court has not followed the procedure laid down under section 195 read with section 340 CrPC, as the petitioner is entitled to get the protection of section 195 and prayed for quashment of the charge -sheet.

(3.) IN reply, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and submitted that both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the application as the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the bar created under section 195 CrPC and this petition being second revision is too not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.