JAVED AKHTAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.6.05 passed by the Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he had taken cognizance for offence under Sections 420 and 406 Penal Code against the petitioners They have also challenged the order dated 20 9.05 passed by the Special Court (Fake Currency) Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Mr. Shashi Paliwal filed a report before the Police Station, Sadar, Jaipur on 18.7.03 whereby he alleged that one M.P. Singh, who happens to be the Regional Manager of Suman Motors Ltd., was given an amount of Rs. 7 lacs by the complainant for allotment of a plot but despite depositing of the amount, no plot was allotted to him. The amount has not been refunded to him. On the basis of the said report, the police registered a formal FIR. FIR No. 278/03 for offences under Sections 420 and 406 Penal Code and commenced the investigation. However, after a thorough investigation on 11.12.04, the police filed a negative final report as the police found the case to be of civil nature. The police also discovered that an amount of Rs. 3.75 lacs was already refunded to the complainant during 2.9.04 to 29.11.04. For the rest of the amount post dated cheques were also given. However, vide order dated 26.2.05 the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they preferred a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. However, case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Special Judge, (Fake Currency) Court, Jaipur City, who vide his order dated 20.9.05 dismissed the revision petition. Hence this misc. petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Ravi Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order dated 22.6 05 is a highly cryptic order. Although a negative F.R. had been submitted by the police, the learned Magistrate did not discuss the said negative F.R. Moreover, the learned Magistrate did not give any reasons for disagreeing with the negative F.R. relying on the case of Sampat Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1993 SC (Cri) 376) and upon the case of Gopal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005(10) RDD 4197) the learned counsel has argued that while taking the cognizance after submission of negative F.R., the Magistrate is legally bound to give reasons for disagreeing with the negative F.R. Since the Magistrate has failed to do so, the cognizance order is not a valid order in the eyes of the law.