SACHIN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 156/2018 dated 03/08/2018 registered at Police-station-Karhi, District-Khargone for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 04/01/2018, respondent No.2-Jagdish Verma filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the applicant for the commission of offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Cr.P.C. alleging that applicant was posted as Chief Executive Officer, of Janpad Panchayat, Maheshwar and without getting any sanction of construction work, he draw the amount from the Govt. funds and by preparing false muster role, he show the payments to the labourer and got prepared forged bill for purchasing building construction material. By doing this, he misused the Govt. money and committed criminal breach of trust. After filing of the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maheshwar directed to call the enquiry report from the police-station- Karhi and the case was fixed on 27/01/2018 for receiving of the enquiry report. However, on 13/01/2018, an application was filed by the respondent No.2 for early hearing of the case and the case was taken up by the trial Court. He also filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate taking a view that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, in the light of judgment of High Court passed in the Case of Papita Devi Vs. Harish, 2012 Cr.L.J. 225, it will be appropriate to direct the police to initiate the enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the applicant and other co- accused persons. Therefore, earlier order for calling the enquiry report was recalled and the police was directed to initiate enquiry in the matter and submit its report or challan. On 03/02/2018 and 14/02/2018, respondent No.1 submitted that the enquiry will take time, therefore, the time was granted. However, on 28/07/2018, respondent No.2 has requested to the learned Magistrate to direct for registration of the FIR against the applicant and the said request was accepted and on the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, respondent No.1 has submitted the report on 03/08/2018 that FIR has been registered. Thereafter, on the request of respondent No.2 matter was fixed on 22/09/2018 for monitoring the investigation. Meanwhile, applicant has preferred revision petition against the order dated 30/01/2018 passed by the JMFC, whereby the police was directed to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., however, said revision petition was dismissed, vide order dated 18/07/2018 by Additional District Judge, Khargone (West Nimar). Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 156/2018 dated 03/08/2018 registered at Police-station- Karhi, District-Khargone for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khargone is having no jurisdiction to recalled its own order dated 04/01/2018, in which enquiry report was directed to call from the respondent No.1. The Magistrate is having no authority or jurisdiction to direct the police for registration of the FIR against the applicant and to make investigation in the matter. Learned JMFC without conducting any preliminary enquiry in to the matter, directed the police for registration of the FIR, which is contrary to the law. It is further submitted that the trial Court has already directed the police for conducting the enquiry in the matter and the police was requested for time to produce the enquiry report, therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed error in directing the police for registration of the FIR against the applicant. It is further submitted that the offence registered against the applicant is triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the Magistrate should have enquired the matter .