GOLAK CHANDRA BHOL Vs. BHASKAR BARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate dated 19.12.1983, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 193/196/198/202/466 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code and issuing notice to the accused petitioner thereunder fixing a date of appearance in 2(c) C.C. No. 73 of 1983.

(2.) THE short fact of the case giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioner was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 174 of 1978 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Kendrapara (now Civil Judge, Junior Division) praying for permanent injunction as against the defendant opp. party in respect of suit schedule land. The plaintiff petitioner produced a purported statutory certificate in Form 8 dated 9.7.1978 under the O.L.R. Act and the certified copies of order of the O.L.R. Authorities. These documents were produced in connection with Misc. Case Nos. 171 and 176 of 1978 in support of his claim of title, in order to obtain an ad interim order of injunction and the Misc. Cases were disposed of on 4.7.1978. The Opp. party No. 1 defendant thereafter made an allegation that these three documents were forged and fabricated ones. The plaintiff petitioner filed his objection, but the learned Munsif made an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and came to the prima facie conclusion that the documents were forged ones and as such it was expedient in the interest of justice to launch a proceeding against the plaintiff, in his order dated 9.11.1983. A complaint petition was therefore filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara which was registered as 2(c) C.C. No. 73 of 1983 under Sections 193/196/198/209/466 and 474, IPC. Allegation is made that the learned Magistrate without proper application of mind, basing on the said order of the learned Munsif, took cognizance of the offences alleged by his order dated 19.12.1983.

(3.) THE petitioner assails the order of cognizance mainly on the ground that after a lapse of years, the continuance of the present criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as the learned Munsif was not authorised under Section 340, Cr.P.C. to conduct an enquiry and record a finding of guilt against the petitioner before lodging a complaint before the learned Magistrate. The order of the learned Magistrate, taking cognizance of offence basing on such finding and complaint lodged by the Munsif is illegal and liable to be quashed.