RAJENDRA BHARTI Vs. NAROTTAM MISHRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed a complaint under section 340 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia which was registered as MJC No. 33/2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29/07/2013. Thereafter, appeal No. 33/2013 filed by the applicant was also dismissed on 05/09/2013 by the Sessions Judge, Datia. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the present revision is filed.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant as well as the respondent No. 1 had contested legislative assembly election in the year 2008. The respondent No. 1 had submitted a nomination form before the returning officer along with an affidavit that he did not own any motor vehicle. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 arranged for various vehicles during his election. One four wheeler bearing registration No. HR-37 B 1282 was used in that election campaign by respondent No. 1 upto 27/11/2008 which was of the respondent No. 1 himself. That vehicle was seized by the officers of the police station Jigna, District Datia for offence under section 188 of IPC and various other offences and crime No. 86/2008 was registered. That vehicle was taken on interim custody by the respondent No. 2 having a power of attorney executed by the respondent No. 1 and vide order dated 01/12/2008, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia gave the vehicle on interim custody to the respondent No. 2. Since, the respondent No. 1 had given an affidavit along with nomination form that he did not have any motor vehicle, therefore, complaint was made before the Election Commission. Vide letter dated 13/04/2012 District Election Officer, Shivpuri intimated the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri to register a criminal case against the respondent No. 1 relating to submission of false affidavit. Thereafter, on enquiry it was found that the vehicle bearing registration No. HR 37-B 1282 was not of the respondent No. 1 and it was made clear by the District Election Officer that affidavit submitted by the respondent No. 1 along with nomination form was correct and therefore, it is self evident that the power of attorney issued by the respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 to get the aforesaid motor vehicle on interim custody was forged document and the respondent No. 2 has also submitted affidavit before the JMFC, Datia to get the interim custody of the vehicle which was false and therefore, a complaint under section 340 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant before the JMFC, Datia to get a relief for offence under section 191, 192, 193, 420, 467 & 468 of IPC.

(3.) After making a short enquiry, the JMFC, Datia vide order dated 29/07/2013 dismissed the complaint, whereas, appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.