SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 31.03.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu in complaint case titled "Sanjay Kumar Vs. Meenakshi Dogra" in terms whereof learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the report of SSP, Jammu dated 30.03.2010 and directed the petitioner to approach the competent Officer of Police having jurisdiction. The relevant facts germane to the disposal of instant petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C may briefly be noticed.

(2.) The case set up by petitioner is that his first wife- Meena Kumari, who was a Government employee died in harness on 30.10.2007 leaving behind her minor son Bhuvneshwar Singh besides petitioner husband as her legal heirs. Subsequently, on 12th May, 2009 petitioner contracted second marriage with respondent no.3 - Meenakshi Dogra. According to petitioner, respondent no.3 lived with him only for one week whereafter she left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. As petitioner's efforts to bring her back failed, petitioner filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking relief of restitution of conjugal rights against respondent no.3 which is said to be pending adjudication before learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu. Thus, according to petitioner, minor son Bhuvneshwar Singh and the petitioner being husband of deceased Meena Kumari were entitled to the service benefits of deceased. Respondent no.3 was neither a member of the family of deceased in the latter's lifetime nor a legal heir or dependent of deceased Meena Kumari and, thus, she could not seek compassionate appointment in terms of SRO 43 against the vacancy created on account of death-in-harness of deceased Meena Kumari. Petitioner moved an application before respondent no.2 - SSP Jammu praying for registration of FIR against respondent no.3 who was alleged to have prepared a forged document for getting appointment under SRO 43 on the false claim of being the dependent of deceased Meena Kumari. The allegedly forged dependent certificate was stated to have been procured from SDM Nowshera and produced by respondent no.3 before SSP Jammu for staking her claim on the strength of such forged dependent certificate. However, no action was taken by SSPJammu which constrained the petitioner to file a complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu for seeking direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in the name of SSP Jammu to register an FIR. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu sought a report from SSP Jammu who submitted report on 30.03.2010, based whereupon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu passed the impugned order assailed in the instant petition.

(3.) The impugned order is assailed on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu passed the impugned order in haste without summoning the record from SSPJammu who had concealed the material facts from the Court below. It is pointed out that when petitioner approached SDM Nowshera to inquire about issuance of the dependent certificate in favour of respondent no.3, it was revealed that no dependent certificate had been issued in her favour under the given number and date. It is submitted that since the forged dependent certificate was produced by respondent no.3 in the office of SSP Jammu to secure benefit of SRO 43, the latter was legally bound to book the guilty person and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu was not justified in accepting the report as offence under Section 471 RPC, prima-facie established against respondent No.3, was committed at Jammu. The impugned order is also assailed on the ground of having been passed at the back of petitioner without affording him an opportunity of being heard.