AMAR SINGH Vs. KARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This Misc. Petition is directed against the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Bilara date 12. 10. 84 whereby learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFS facts living rise to petition are that on 26. 4. 83 one Amra Ram, non pettioner No. 2 applied for a loan of Rs 25,000/from Bilara Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. under the scheme of Bhumi Vikas Karya for digging well and installing pump set and mortgage his land bearing Khasra Nos. 2631 and 2479, which was verified by the non-petitioner No. 2 as free from encumbrances and loan was granted and the documents were executed in favour of the bank. On enq-uiry from Deputy Registration Officer, Bhopalgarh it was found that land measur ing 18. 15 Bigha of Khasra No. 2479 has been sold to one Kanaram. On this, Karan Singh, non-petitioner No 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 with the allegation that petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 inspite of the fact that land was sold to Kanaram on 30. 6. 83 mentioned the land free from encumbrances and thus committed the offence u/secs. 420 and 120 B IPC. After investigation police gave opinion that no case is made out and submitted its final report on 26. 10. 83. The learned Magistrate on 24. 10. 84 accepted the FR. Thereafter on 26. 7. 84 non-petitioner No. 1 Karan Singh filed another complaint against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 u/secs. 416, 418, 420 and 120b IPC, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner u/secs. 167, 176, 177, 199 and 202 IPC. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred this application.

(3.) IN the instant case, the final report was submitted on 26. 10. 83 but the learned Magistrate was not of the opinion to examine the complainant or the witnesses and he accepted the final report which is a Judicial order. It appears that inspite of accepting the final report non-petitioner no. 1 Karansingh filed a complaint on 26-7-84 for the same ofience and the Magistrate after taking evidence of Karansingh U/sec. 200 and Pema Ram attesting witness of the documents lodged before the bank u/sec. 202, took cognizance which was without jurisdiction, Moreover, the complaint does not disclose any new material and taking evidence after acceptance of final report is not permissible, even if new material was available. Thus, this mode adopted by the learned Magistrate is not warranted and if the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is allowed, it will amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Thus, in my opinion to secure ends of justice the order of learned Magistrate deserves to be quarhed.