RAM SWAROOP SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a S. H. O. at the relevant time, has challenged the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him, and the order of cognizance dated 27-9-1994 as well as order dated 18-11-1997 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petitioner's application under sec. 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code' for short ).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, Radha Raman Kalani alleged that he has sent two reports to P. S. Ashok Nagar on 27-5-1993. However, the police did not register any formal FIR on the said reports. Simultaneously, on the same day, a FIR was registered against the respondent No. 1, Mr. Kalani, being FIR No. 208/ 1993, for offences under Sections 406 and 420,i. P. C. Subsequently on 3-7-1993, Mr. Kalani lodged a complaint against Sh. R. C. Daga and twenty others in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City wherein he had alleged that he had purchased two plots, B-2 and B-3, measuring 400 sq. yds. from Buniyadi Vikas grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, of which Sh. Daga and one Padam Singh Kothari were the President and the Secretary respectively. The consideration for the purchase was Rs. 12,000/ -. Out of which, on 9-4-1988, he had paid them Rs. 3105/ -. However, so far the possession of the plots has not been given to him. On the basis of this complaint, vide order dated 8-7-1993 the learned Magistrate called for the report from S. H. O. , P, S. Ashok Nagar under Section 210 of the Code. It is further alleged that the petitioner while submitting the report, had used defamatory language with regard to Mr. Kalani. In particular, he had written in the report that Mr. Kalani happens to be "dhokebaz" and "chalak Kisrn Ka Apradhi". Therefore, on 8-3-1994, Mr. Kalani filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate for offence under Sec. 500, I. P. C. against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate examined Mr. Kalani under Section 200 of the Code of vide order dated 27-9-1994 took cognizance. On 30-5-1997, the petitioner filed an application under Section 197 of the Code wherein he claimed the protection of the said property. However, vide order dated 18-11-1997, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) MR. B. L. Mandhana, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present petition before this Court. According to the counsel, in case of disputed question of facts, petition under Section 482 of the Code is not maintainable. According to Mr. Mandhana, the petitioner ought to have filed a revision petition and should not have invoked the inherent power of this court. Before dealing with other contentions of the learned counsels, suffice it to say that the preliminary objection is unsustainable. For, in any, lis between the parties, there is bound to be disputed question of facts. Moreover, there is no prohibition contained in Sec. 482 of the Code which prescribes that the petition under Sec. 482 of the Code is not maintainable in case of disputed question of facts. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsels deserves to be rejected.