LAXMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions are directed against the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bar, dated January 16, 1989, directing charges to be framed against the petitoners Ramjan Khan and Laxmi Chand. Ramjan Khan has been charged for the offences under secs. 120-B, 466, 468 and 471, I. P. C. and accused Laxmi Chand under secs. 120-B, 167, 467, 468. and 471, I. P. C. The petitioners want that the order of the learned Magistrate dated January 16, 1989, as also the charges framed against them, be quashed.

(2.) FIRST, the facts; Accused Ramjan Khan was named as an accused in F. I. R. case No. 94 dated Nov. 7, 1975 for the offence under sec. 376 and 342, I. P. C. In that case, a final report was submitted by the police and the same was accepted by the learned Magistrate. We are not concerned with that case except to the extent that in support of the application moved in that case for anticipa-tory bail of accused Ramjan Khan, reliance was placed on two certificates issued by Sukh Lal Sencha, the then M. L. A. , and Dr. Suraj Prakash Vyas, to support the alibi of the accused. However, these certificates are not the subject matter of trial in the present case. The allegations of the prosecution in the present case are that the accused Ramjan Khan, Laxmi Chand and Dr. Suraj Prakash Vyas entered into a conspiracy to create evidence to support the alibi of Ramjan Khan and in that connection, some sheets of papers were removed from the Indoor Patients Register of the Primary Health Centre, Peepaliya, and a false entry at Serial Number 154 was prepared, showing Ramjan Khan as an indoor patient from October 21, 1975 to October 23, 1975. During this period Dr. Suraj Prakas Vyas was the Incharge of the Centre, while Laxmi Chand was a Compounder These documents also were not used by any of the accused in any proceedings. However, the matter was brought to light by one Ganga Singh of Peepaliya Kalan. There upon a report was lodged by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Pali, at the Police Station, Raipur, on August 23,1977. The case was investigated at several hands and finally by the C. I. D. (C. B.), Jodhpur. On April 8,1981, the police Inspector C. I. D. (C. B.) after investigation, submitted a final report to the Judicial Magistrate, stating that the prosecution of the accused was not desir-able, inasmuch as the main plank of the prosecution case was the filing of the false certificates in the Court of Sessions Judge Ajmer, and cognizance could, therefore, be taken, only on the complaint of that Court as required by section 195 (b) (ii), Cr. P. C. , but the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer who was moved for making the complaint, had declined the request as the documents had already been weeded out. In the report, it was further stated that the occurrence took place as back as 1975 and a period of six years had expired and for this reason, also, the prosecution was not desirable. However, the Judicial Magistrate, Jai-taran, by the order dated October 20,1981, did not accept the final report and took cognizance of the offence against the accused-petitioners and Dr. Suraj Prakash Vyas. Against this, a revision was filed by Dr. Suraj Prakash Vyas before the Sessions Judge, Pali. By the order dated May6, 1983 the Sessions Judge accepted the revision, holding inter alia that Dr. Suraj Prakash Vyas could not be tried in the absence of a sanction of the Govt. as required by sec. 1. 97, Cr. P. C. Thereafter, a period of Five years passed without anything substantial being done. It was on January 16, 1989 that the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Bar, by the impugned order, directed framing of charges against the accused. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petitions in this Court under sec. 482, Cr. P. C.

(3.) IN Guin Versus Grindlays Bank, (3) the Supreme Court directed termination of the proceedings as there was a delay of 7 years. It was said : "we are of the view that having regard to the nature of the acts alleged to have been committed by the appellants and other attendant circumstances, this was a case in which the High Court should have directed the dropping of the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code even if for some reason it came to the conclusion that the acquittal was wrong. A fresh trial nearly seven years after the alleged incident is bound to result in harassment and abuse of judicial process. "