(1.) These two applications (Cr. Revision No. 373 of 2003 and Cr.Revision No. 481 of 2003) under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'Code') are directed against the part of the order dated 29-3-2003 passed in T.R. No. 1299 of 2002 in Cr. Revision No. 373 of 2003 and T.R. No. 840 of 2003 in Cr. Revision No. 481 of 2001, both arising out of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 111 of 2000 dated 1-6-2000 and in both the applications, same question of law and facts are involved, hence they are being disposed of by common order.
(2.) Facts briefly stated are that the O.P. No. 2 complainant filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih and the complaint case was sent to the P.S. concerned under Section 156(3) of the Code for institution and investigation of the case and on the basis of which, police registered a case being Giridih (T) P.S., Case No. 111 of 2000 under Sections 406/408/ 409/466/468/477/120 B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. The fact which emerged from the complaint case is that O.P. No. 2 Bhuneshwar Yadav had purchased 1.16 acres of land of Khata No. 73, Plot No. 294, 295, 296, 301 and 314 from one Daud All and others by registered sale deed No. 4524/4498 dated 15-4-1991 registered at District Registration Office, Giridih and received the sale deed on 16-3-1996. It was further alleged that after receiving the sale deed, he had made application for mutation but mutation was kept pending on the ground that recital of last two lines of third page of the sale deed measuring 0.16 decimals has been penned through. It is further alleged that the complainant suspected that the aforesaid mischief was committed under the conspiracy hatched up by Rameshwar Das and Shankar Das, the two class-IV employees working in the Registration office, Giridih because he is facing litigation of land with them. The complainant had levelled allegation against several persons including this petitioner. After submission of charge sheet, cognizance in the case was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Glridih under Sections 406/408/409/466/467/468/477/120 B of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 4-10-2002.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr. Revision No. 373 of 2003 has submitted that the petitioner was working as a Registrar and, therefore, he was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the Code and no cognizance should have been taken without sanction from the competent authority. It was further pointed out that he functioned as a District Sub-Registrar, Giridih from 12-1-1990 to 7-8-1992. It was further pointed out that the entire materials were collected during the investigation by the investigating officer and there is no direct or indirect evidence for even suspicion against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offences. II. was further pointed out that the petitioner had no enmity with complainant-O.P. No. 2 or complainant - O.P. No. 2 had no enmity with the petitioner and, therefore, there was no occasion for this petitioner to commit forgery as alleged in the F.I.R. It was further submitted that contention of the O.P. No. 2 that he filed a petition for mutation of his name in the serista is not correct because when complaintant - O.P. No. 2 was directed to file case No. of the mutation case, then submission was made that he has not yet filed any mutation case, and after filing of this case, mutation petition has been filed. It was further submitted that from the complaint petition, it will appear that though registration of the document was done on 5-4-1991 but complainant received the sale deed on 16-3-1996, but this petitioner worked from 12-1-1990 to 7-8-1992 only and this forgery came to knowledge in the year 1996 and, therefore, it cannot be said that during the functioning of this petitioner this forgery has been committed. It. was also submitted that a petition under Section 239 of the Code was filed for discharge of the petitioner which was rejected.