MAHENDRA SINGH RAJAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Mahendra Singh Rajawat, who was at the relevant time Cooperative Inspector in Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur for quashing the complaint No. 08/2008 filed by Hanendra Kumar Mehta, and against the order dated 12.2.2009 and 13.10.2008 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur for taking cognizance against the petitioner on the basis of statement recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. for the offence under sections 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and sections 31 and 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982.

(2.) The complainant Hemendra Kumar Mehta presented a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 JDA Court, Jaipur against several persons including the petitioner under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120 B IPC and sections 31, 72 read with section 75 of the JDA Act on 13.10.2008. On the same day the report was called and the stamp reporter raised 5 objections which were overruled by the presiding officer on the same day and without recording the statements of the witnesses he took cognizance against the petitioner along with others. In this case normally the court posts the case next date for report and therreafter records the statements of witnesses if case is made out then take cognizance but in this case the cognizance was taken first that is also on the same day of presentation of complaint and thereafter recorded the statements of complainant under above mentioned sections in due course the trial court first and thereafter took cognizance. After taking cognizance the trial court fixed the case for recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner filed written submission and it has been stated that prior to filing of complainant in the instant matter, one Om Prakash Sharma lodged an FIR No. 490/08 on 9.6.2008 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar for the same incident. The investigation of same is pending. The incident mentioned in the complaint and FIR No. 490 of 2008 are of the year 1994 to 1999. The complaint was presented by the complainant to take the favour of presiding officer by adding sections 31, 72 and 75 of JDA Act whereby the jurisdiction of JDA court was made because when the complainant found that no offence is made out against the petitioner as well as some other persons so he played a trick by adding the sections of JdA Act to get the favour of the presiding officer of their choice. It is clear from the act of the complainant that no offence against him is made out from bare perusal of complaint as well as the cognizance order. The petitioner was not the owner of any plot and nor beneficiary from any side and even by his duty no body is effected. After perusal of FIR, complaint as well as the statement of the witness Hemdnra Kumar Mehta, it was not alleged against the petitioner that he forged any document or made any signature hence no offence under section 467 IPC is made out. The petitioner was posted in the JDA in the year 2000. According to the complaint as well as the statement of the witness Hemendra Kumar Mehta, the incidents were recorded for the year 1994 to 1999 in that period the petitioner was not posted in JDA and he is liable to be attributed any act in the commission of offence. It was alleged inm the statement of the complainant that the petitioner along with others advertised about the goodwill of housing society on the above allegation no offence is made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the statement of the complainant no offence under sections 72, 75 and 31 of the JDA Act is made out against him because it is not alleged in the complaint that the petitioner encroached upon the land and made obstruction upon public land. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complainant neither alleged in the complaint nor in the statement that he cheated and dishonestly induced him to deliver any property to any person, or to make,alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security , hence no offence under section 420 IPC is made out. It was further contended that it was also not alleged against the petitioner about the forgery by the petitioner for the purpose of cheating hence nooffence under section 468 IPC is made out and it was not alleged that the petitioner used the forged document as genuine hence no offence under section 471 IPC is made out. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604 wherein the Apex Court issued certain directions according to that it was pointed out that the cognizance against the petitioner is liable to be set aside in the exercise of inherent powers of this court.