NARSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria in revision, whereby, the revision filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was allowed and the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria taking cognizance against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the allegations of the complainant, the accused committed the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by filing false proceedings before the Engineer of the Irrigation Department for the purpose of having a government water canal sanctioned. Learned counsel submits that for this end, the accused forged the signatures of the petitioner for the purpose of showing the consent of the complainant. Learned counsel submits that in this case, the charge-sheet was led against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused and in the opinion of this Court rightly so. Thereafter, the accused challenged the order taking cognizance by way of filing a revision and the learned revisional court by resorting to the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. has quashed the order taking cognizance. Learned counsel submits that Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. would only apply in relation to the offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. He further submits that Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. would only apply to the cases, wherein, the offence is committed in relation to a document after the same is filed in a court. Learned counsel submits that as none of the above situations exist in the matter, the revisional court has committed grave error and illegality in quashing the order taking cognizance by having resort to the said provision. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) For a better appreciation of the arguments, the provisions of Section 195(1)(a) and 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. are quoted here-in-below:-