NATHU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal question that falls for our determination in this reference made by the Division Bench of this Court reads as under:

(2.) The Background facts giving rise to the legal issue may be summarized thus: The petitioners preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR No.12/16 lodged at Police Station, Jayal, District Nagaur, for the offence under Section 91(6) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). Precisely, the quashing of the FIR was prayed for by the petitioners on the ground that the offence alleged being non-cognizable, the police had no jurisdiction or power to register the FIR. Reliance in this regard was placed on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Pintu Dey vs. State of Rajasthan: 2015(3) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1291, laying down that the offences under Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act being punishable by sentence of imprisonment upto three years, are non-cognizable offences. On behalf of the State, it was urged that law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Pintu Dey's case (supra), is incorrect inasmuch as, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajiv Choudhary vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi :AIR 2001 SC 2369 was wrongly applied.

(3.) The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the decisions cited at the bar, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') and Section 91 (6) of the Act of 1956, being of the opinion that the law laid down in Pintu Dey's case (supra) is not correct, while expressing difference of opinion, has referred the question of law referred supra for adjudication by a Larger Bench. Hence, this reference.