BEG RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gopi Chand filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu alleging that land measuring 15 bighas 4 biswas of Khasra No. 197 was in Khatedari of one Khamanaram resident of village Gidania. He had two sons, namely, Gopichand, the complainant, and Sukhdeva and they became the khatcdar tenants of the land and were in possession. Khamanaram had one more brother Rama Kishan whose son was Har Narain and accused Nos. 1 to 5 are sons of Har Narain. They got their names entered into the land belonging to Rama Kishan but they had no connection with the land in katedari of Khamanamm but accused Nos. 1 to 5 entered into a conspiracy 2nd got forged signatures of Gopi Chand and Sukhdev and on the basis of forged documents got the mutation in their avour. Even the thumb impressions had been fraudulently done. Gopi Chand and Sukhdev are alleged to have been identified by other accused persons, namely, Nauranga, Doongaram and Nagar. Thus it was alleged that all the accused Nos. 1 to 8 are guilty of commission of offence. It was mentioned in the complaint that the complainant had moved the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu who had directed his complaint to the Station House Officer, Chirawa but no satisfactory reply is being given to him, hence he is compelled to file this complaint. First the learned Magistrate sent the matter to police for answering as to what has been done in respect of the report lodged by the complainant. The Police replied to the court that there was never registered a case and no investigation is pending there. Therefore, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and he also summoned the original record where the documents have been filed and ultimately on 2/1/1986 took cognizance of the offence under sections 420, 467 and 468, IPC against the accused persons. Seven of the accused-petitioners filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu challenging the order taking cognizance and for quashing the proceedings. The ground for challenging cognizance was that since a revenue suit is pending in connection with the same documents forgery of which, it is alleged, criminal court cannot take cognizance of the offence except by a complaint to be filed by the court where the suit was pending. The said revision petition filed by the petitioners having been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, this application under section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that accused Nos. 1 to 4 and non-petitioner No. 3 as well as the complainant are the discendants of Harjiram and the land has been divided between the parties when new khasra Nos. 369, 370 and 371 were given instead of khasra No. 97 and under the new settlement operations it was on the basis of possession of the parties that the land Surveyor (Amin) prepared a note with the agreement of the parties. It was submitted that the said mutation was signed by- the petitioner Moturam who was the eldest amongst petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and non- petitioner No. 3, besides Gopi Chand, Sukhdevram, Ward Panch and Dungaram Sarpanch. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant Gopi Chand and his brother Sukhdev wanted to resile from whatever has been decided and challenged the settlement operations and in the same process two revenue proceedings had been initiated-one before the Settlement Officer, Bikaner and the other before Assistant Collector, Jhunjhunu. In the earlier proceedings settlement operations were challenged, while in the latter injunction was sought for under section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and section 151, C.P.C. It is submitted that learned Assistant Collector on the basis of the material on record held that the agriculture land bearing khasra No. 197 has been divided between the parties and the physical division had also taken place and the land which is now in new khasra No. 369 is exclusively occupied by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and non-petitioner No. 3, hence an application for temporary injunction filed by the complainant was rejected. It is submitted that the present complaint has been filed in order to pressurise the petitioners else such a complaint is clearly barred by the provisions of section 195, Cr. P.C. It is submitted that once a document has been submitted or produced in evidence in any court it is only the court where such document has been filed or produced, is competent to file a complaint for the offences mentioned in section 195, Cr. P.C. It is submitted that the case is covered by the law laid down in R.P. Japur v. State of Punjab1 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have classified the various records of cases where the proceedings should be quashed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for non petitioner No. 2 submits that the trial court as well as the revisional court was justified in rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioners about sanction, since the objection is absolutely premature. It is submitted that a perusal of the file of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate would show that there is absolutely no material on the record on the basis of which it could be said that the documents had been produced or given in evidence in any proceedings. It is submitted that unless there is proper application and material on record to substantiate the fact law cannot be pressed into service. Law assists only when the facts alleged are established on record. unless the factual foundation is laid, it was not open to the petitioner to have raised the question of section under section 195, Cr. PC.