SMT. BASHIRAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Bashiran widow of Jahoorkhan. petitioner in these two cases filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa, alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Penal Code by (i) Jahoor Khan, (ii) Abdul Shajid, (iii) Ramphool, (iv) Iqbal and (v) Kaluram Bunkar, the then Sub Registrar, Tehsil Dausa. in respect of forgery of a document. The learned Magistrate called for a police report under section 156(3) Crimial P.C. The police gave a final report stating that it was a dispute of civil nature. The complainant lodged a protest petition and on that basis, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. This order was set-aside in a revision petition and the matter was remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for giving the complainant adequate opportunity to lead evidence. After recording the evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, again took cognizance for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Penal Code rejecting the final report. Against that order, a revision petition was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, who has by the impugned order set aside the order of taking cognizance of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the complaint was hit by Sec. 195 Crimial P.C. and cognizance could be taken only on a complaint made by the Court in which the forged document is produced. Against this order, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 799/98 has been filed by the petitioner complainant.

(2.) The petitioner complainant had filed another complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. On the basis of this complaint, a first information report No. 487/93 was lodged at the Police Station, Dausa and the Investigating Officer gave a final report stating therein that the case is of a civil nature. A protest petition was lodged by the complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. That order was challenged in a revision petition before the learned Sessions Court and the Sessions Court set aside the order taking cognizance and remanded the case back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, directing him to decide the question afresh after giving an opportunity under section 200 and 202 Crimial P.C. After remand, cognizance was again taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 Crimial P.C. the cognizance was taken under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. Against this, a revision petition was filed in the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 2nd March, 1998, set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the complaint was hit by Sec. 195 Crimial P.C. and only the court, in which the forged document was produced would have filed a complaint. Both these revision petitions raise identical questions and they are being decided by this common order.

(3.) The allegations against the accused persons in these two cases, in short, are that they had forged the sale deed and got it registered and thus, committed offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while taking cognizance had found a prima facie case to be made out on the allegations that the complainant's signatures were obtained by giving her an impression that she was made to sign her pension papers and this document was used showing it to be a genuine document before the different courts and the Tehsildar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, set aside the order of cognizance in his revision jurisdiction holding that such a complaint could be filed only by the court in which the forged document was produced.