DEVESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. P.L.AHIRWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 397 / 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.03.2017 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P), in Criminal Revision No.401/2015 arising out of order dated 10.12.2014 passed by J.M.F.C. Jabalpur in criminal complaint case no.16862/2014 whereby cognizance of the offence under sections 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 / 34 of the I.P.C. has been taken against the respondents. The learned Revisional Court vide order dated 16.3.2017 quashed the aforesaid order of the J.M.F.C. and remitted the matter to the learned J.M.F.C. with a direction to pass fresh order after hearing both the parties.

(2.) In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the applicant/complainant has filed a complaint against the respon- dents alleging inter alia that the applicant and the respondents are members of the Society known as AJAK and on 11.10.2014 election for the post of officer-bearers of the Organisation was being held for the session 2014-15 in which respondent no.1 was appointed as the Chief Election Officer by the respondent no.3, who was the Secretary of the State office of the AJAK. In the election, applicant/com- plainant was the only candidate for the post of President. On 11.10.2014 at time of filing of nomination forms by the candidates for different posts, at nearabout 3 PM respondent no.2 brought a fax and delivered to the respondent no.1 accused with regard to post- ponement of the election on behalf of the Executive Chairman of the AJAK. Later on, it was revealed that it was a forged document. It was not signed by the Executive Chairman and he did not sign on it and according to the applicant/complainant the respondents have committed the offence punishable under sections 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of the I.P.C.

(3.) After recording the evidence in the enquiry the learned JMFC took cognizance against the respondents for the aforementioned of- fences. The said order was challenged before the revisional court and the revisional court vide impugned order dated 16.3.2017 ar- rived at the conclusion that the learned Magistrate without applying its mind or considering the material produced before him in a me- chanical manner took cognizance as there is prima facie no material to come to the conclusion that the fax is a forged document as there is no evidence of the person concerned on behalf of whom the fax was allegedly sent and there is no iota of material with regard to commission of the offence under sections 467 , 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. Hence, the order with regard to taking cognizance has been quashed with a direction that the parties be heard afresh and then appropriate order be passed.