BHOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereby taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 477 IPC. The challenge is made on the ground that earlier Kundanlal, husband of complaint non-petitioner had filed a criminal complaint, upon which a case was registered and the police after investigation submitted negative report and the learned Magistrate accepted the same vide order dated 21.12.2004 and now on same facts/allegations, the complainant has filed complaint against the petitioner, which is not tenable in the eye of law and therefore, if proceedings are allowed to continue, it would tentamount to abuse of process of law.

(2.) It is true that earlier FIR No. 73/2000 for offence under Sec. 406 and 420 Penal Code was registered on the complaint of Kundan Lal, husband of complainant and the police after recording statements of some witnesses under Sec. 161 Cr.PC. did not find any case against the petitioner and accordingly submitted final report, which as stated above was accepted by the learned Magistrate. In the earlier report lodged by Kundan Lal the allegations against the petitioner were to the effect that he executed an agreement in favour of complainant, in respect of the land which was in dispute and by concealing the truth and by fraudulent meanse the petitioner got Rs.45,000.00 from Kundanlal. Upon these allegations a case was registered for offence under Sec. 406 and 420 Penal Code but, the police, as stated above submitted negative report. In the present complaint submitted by the complainant the allegation against the petitioner was that he destroyed the agreement executed by the petitioner in her favour and a case for offence under Sec. 477 Penal Code was registered. Evidently thus, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of different offence and for different event. It is true that allegations as contained in the earlier complaint of Kundan Lal have been reiterated in the present complaint but the substance of the present complaint submitted by Mst. Kaila Devi is that petitioner has destroyed the agreement executed in her favour. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate on consideration of material available before it and having satisfied as to the commission of offence has rightly taken cognizance. Therefore, the order impugned in this petition does not call for any interference.

(3.) In the result, this petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.