ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was the complainant before the court below, has approached this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.09.2001 passed by Sri V.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 135C of 2001. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2001 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Revision No.212 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the order of rejection of the complaint petition passed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner had filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa against Opp.Party nos. 2 and 3 for commission of offences under Sections 119, 466, 120B, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition, three types of allegations were made. Firstly, it was alleged that Opp.Party no.1 in collusion with some fictitious persons had got a sale deed executed in his favour in respect of the land of complainant. It was further alleged that while the complainant filed a suit for declaring the sale deed as void vide Title Suit No.15 of 1999, opp.party no.2 in connivance with Opp.Party no.3 made a forged amendment in the Voter list with a view to use the same in Title Suit No.15 of 1999, which was filed by the complainant. The third allegation was that in Jamabandi Proceeding No.178 of 1999 when the notice was issued to the complainant, his signature was forged in the notice. On the aforesaid grounds, a complaint was filed and the complainant in support of his case had produced four witnesses at the stage of enquiry. However, the learned Magistrate was of the view that since the suit was pending before the court of civil jurisdiction in respect of declaring the sale deed as void , the prosecution was barred by Section 195 (1b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The learned Magistrate was also of the view that so far as other allegations are concerned, that was related to the offence committed by accused no.3, who was a Panchayat Sewak. The learned Magistrate of the view that sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required and thereafter the learned Magistrate rejected the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of rejection of complaint petition, the complainant/ petitioner filed a revision vide Cr. Revision No.212 of 2001, which too stood rejected by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharsa. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing the present petition.