JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the impugned order dated 12.8.97 passed by ACJM No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 196/91. From the impugned order, it is apparent that the accused petitioner who is a deed-writer in the District Court 5 at Jaipur is alleged to have fabricated some documents including some affidavits i.e. an affidavit of himself and 2 certificates/affidavits of the members of State Legislative Assembly who had deposed in the said affidavits in favour of the accused-petitioner that he has been resding in Jaipur for last about 10 years. The aforesaid documents were allegedly fabricated with a view to 10 derive undue benefit by the petitioner and the said act of the petitioner comes within the purview of the provisions of Sec. 195, Crimial P.C. for the commission of the substantive offence of forgery of aforesaid documents punishable under Sec. 471 Penal Code and the act of presenting them as genuine which is punishable under Sec. 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The aforesaid forgery was detected by the complainant who is Additional Collector No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur as on 23.8.1991 when the complaint in this regard was forwarded by the said officer to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jaipur on 17.3.81. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR was lodged with Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur on 24.3.81 and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the Court on 23.12.82. Thereafter, on 6.3.87 an application was moved by the Petitioner under Sec. 195 and 340 Crimial P.C. in the Court of ACJM No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur with a request for dropping of the proceedings against the him on account of the cognizance having been taken against the petitioner by the police on the basis of the aforesaid complaint forwarded by the Additional Collector. The said Application was rejected on 12.8.97 on merits as being not maintainable by the trial court against which the petitioner has come to this Court by way of instant misc. petition. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the following contentions

(2.) As regards, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that it was not incumbent upon the Additional Collector to have made a complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of taking cognizance against the accused petitioner for the commission of aforesaid offences inasmuch as, he being a public servant was competent enough to lodge a first information report himself directly with the concerned police station having the jurisdiction to register the FIR instead of filing formal complainant in writing because in view of Sec. 2(d) of the Code, it is not necessary for the complainant to forward a complaint in writing to the Area Magistrate inasmuch as, the congnizance can be taken even on the basis of an oral complaint by the concerned Magistrate and since in this case admittedly, the FIR was lodged directly by an Executive Officer of the State of the rank of Additional Collector to the concerned police station, in my view no illegality has been committed in this regard in view of the commission of the substantive offence of fabrication of documents by the petitioner with the sole intention of presenting them as genuine which has been done with the sole intention of the accused of deriving undue gain to himself but in which he could not finally succeed in view of timely presentation of the complaint by the Additional Collector which was registered as an FIR by the concerned Police Station. The said documents were found to be fabricated and forged during the course of investigation by the Investigating Police.

(3.) As regards, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, there is obvious fallacy in the said argument because FIR was registered by the police directly on the basis of oral statement of the complainant and not on the basis of a complaint madein writing to the said effect. The task of the Investigating Agency has to proceed immediately for investigation in any of the two situations as aforesaid.