DEVI DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner accused against the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Cr. Original Case No. 355/2012 (State Vs. Devi Dan) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 166, 176, 186 and 187 I.P.C.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner was posted as the S.H.O., Swaroopganj at the relevant time. It appears that the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara forwarded certain complaints to the Police Station, Swaroopganj under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. Despite the lapse of fairly long duration, the complaints were not registered as F.I.Rs. Accordingly, the C.J.M. Sirohi issued a notice dated 12.7.2012 to the present petitioner being the S.H.O. of the concerned police station to show cause as to why the F.I.Rs. were not registered on the basis of seven complaints forwarded by the Court to the Police Station under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. between the period 4.1.2012 to 25.4.2012. The petitioner, S.H.O. submitted an official reply mentioning that the complaints forwarded to the Police Station by the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara were registered as F.I.Rs. and a list of the F.I.Rs. was included in the reply. Learned C.J.M. by order dated 25.10.2012 rejected the explanation forwarded by the petitioner holding that the petitioner committed dereliction of duties by failing to timely register the F.I.Rs. on the basis of the complaints forwarded to the police station by the Court under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. By the same order dated 25.10.2012, the learned C.J.M. proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 166, 176, 186 and 187 I.P.C. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the C.J.M. Sirohi by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Mr. Narpat Singh Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, apart from being grossly illegal also amounts to a patent abuse of the process of the Court and thus deserves to be set aside. He submitted that the order impugned suffers from the following two apparent shortcomings, which bring it within the purview of being a gross abuse of process of court:-