BAIJNATH PRASAD Vs. SITARAM LODHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 3/4/2000 passed by JMFC Begumganj, Distt. Raisen whereby learned JMFC rejected the applicant's private complaint filed against the non-applicants to take cognizance against them for the offence punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471, 420, 494 and 120B of the IPC against the non-applicants.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this petition are that the applicant filed a private complaint before JMFC, Begumganj averring that non-applicant no.1 Sitaram Lodhi, who was already married, abducted her daughter, who was minor at the time of incident, with the help of non-applicant no.2 Ismail Khan. Regarding that incident, applicant lodged a report against the non-applicant nos.1 and 2 at P.S. Khurai, Distt. Sagar. On that report, police registered Crime no.41/1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(a)/34 of the IPC against the non-applicant nos.1 and 2. They in connivance with the non-applicant no.3 manipulated the school record of government middle school and changed the date of birth of the prosecutrix in the school record. In the school record, earlier his daughter's date of birth was mentioned as 18/11/81 and non-applicant nos.1 and 2 in connivance with non-applicant no.3 got it changed to 18/11/80 and on that basis non-applicants prepared forged marksheet of Class-VIIth of the prosecutrix for showing her as major and non applicant nos.1 and 2 produced that mark sheet before the High Court for getting anticipatory bail, in that crime. Applicant further averred that non applicant no.1, who was already married got again married with the prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of the incident. So cognizance has been taken against the non-applicant nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471, 420, 494 and 120B of the IPC. On that, learned JMFC recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200 of the CrPC, 1973 and also recorded the statement of R.K. Saha and Pooran Singh under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and also called the enquiry report from S.D.O.P. Begamganj. Thereafter, by order dated 3/4/2000 rejected the applicant's complaint observing that it did not appear prima facie that the non-applicants prepared forged mark sheet of the prosecutrix and there is no evidence on record to show that non-applicant no.1 Sitaram solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix according to hindu custom. Regarding allegation that non-applicant nos.1 and 2 produced that forged mark sheet before the High Court for getting anticipatory bail, for the offence punishable under Section 471 of IPC, Court can only take cognizance of this offence on the complaint only of the Court as mentioned in the section 195 of Cr.P.C., 1973 Being aggrieved from the order, applicant filed this criminal revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence produced by the applicant before the trial Court prima facie it is clear that non-applicant no.1 Sitaram Lodhi, who was already married, solemnized marriage with her daughter, who was minor at the time of marriage. Likewise from the statement of complainant and his witness R.K. Saha and the document produced by the applicant in support of his complaint, it is clearly proved that non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with non applicant no.3 manipulated the school record of government middle school and changed the date of birth of prosecutrix in the school record, where previously the date of birth of his daughter was mentioned as 18/11/81, and non-applicant nos.1 and 2 in connivance with the non-applicant no.3 got it changed as 18/11/80 and on that basis non-applicant no.3 prepared forged mark-sheet of Class-VIIth of the prosecutrix for showing her major and non applicant nos.1 and 2 produced that mark sheet before the High Court for getting anticipatory bail, in that crime. Learned trial Court wrongly rejected the applicant's complaint.