LALITA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed against the order dated 28.8.2012 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistate No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 1118/2012 whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 471 and 120B IPC.

(2.) The short facts of case giving rise to this petition are that complainant Bhagwan Sahai Saini, Tehsildar Amer Distt. Jaipur lodged a report at Police Station Amer, Distt. Jaipur on 12.1.2011 alleging therein that he received an application by applicant Sandeep S/o Moti Lal Saravgi with four documents along with application and on the application Patwari, Amer was directed for enquiry and submit the report for opening mutation in the name of Sandeep. After enquiry and producing the relevant documents, the mutation was opened thereafter, he was called for investigation in FIR No. 199/2010 registered at Police Station, Banipark, it came to the notice of the present complainant Bhagwan Sahai that the documents made available by the petitioner Sandeep for opening mutation were forged and fague documents and on the basis of such documents, public servant has been cheated and mutation have get to be opened illegally. On this report, a FIR 26/2011 came to be registered under Sec. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Penal Code at Police Station Amer, Jaipur and after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the present petitioner and cognizance has been taken mechanically against the present petitioner on printed performa. The present petitioner assailed the order by way of revision which was rejected.

(3.) The only contention of the petitioner is that earlier on same allegations, FIR No.199/2010 was registered and afrer investigation charge-sheet has been has been filed and present petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 668 and 471 IPC, hence this second FIR and second criminal proceedings could not be continued and it is abuse of the process. Admittedly, present complainant was witness in FIR No. 199/2010 and on the same allegations, earlier FIR was lodged and reliance has been placed on Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation, JT 2013 (4) SC 333, the second FIR is impermissible: