SULTAN SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Sultan Singh Rawat
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) THE applicants, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the proceedings of criminal case No. 384 of 2007, Dayal Singh vs. Sultan Singh and others, under Sections 109, 181, 182, 193, 211, 465, 468, 469 and 500 of IPC, police station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.
(2.) COMPLAINANT Dayal Singh Rawat and others faced a criminal trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, Garhwal, which trial was initiated at the behest of Sultan Singh and others. Dayal Singh Rawat and others were exonerated by learned Magistrate, vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2007. By way of criminal complaint No. 384 of 2007, it was alleged by the complainant that his image was tarnished, his reputation was harmed and he was defamed by the accused persons (applicants herein). After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., accused -applicants Sultan Singh, Ravindra Singh and Kamla Devi were summoned by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, Garhwal to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 182, 468, 469 and 500 of IPC, vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2007. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicants. It may be made clear at the very outset that No complaint was filed by or at the instance of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar, Garhwal while delivering the judgment on 07.03.2007. Sub -Section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. says that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing by that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or by some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Summoning of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 181 and 182 of IPC is, therefore, per se illegal.
(3.) 'Forgery' is defined under Section 463 of IPC. Section 471 of IPC provides for the punishment when a forged document is used as genuine one. The cognizance of the said offences is also barred, except on the complaint in writing of that Court who was seized with the matter. In other words, the cognizance on the same could be taken only upon filing of a complaint by the Court where such document was produced in evidence. Here no such complaint was filed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kotdwar. Accused persons were summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 468 IPC and 469 IPC also, without there being any prima facie evidence to show the same. The summoning of the accused persons under Sections 468 and 469 of IPC was also per se bad in the eyes of law. Section 468 IPC and Section 469 IPC in a way, are the species of Section 463 of IPC (genre).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.