R.A.Misra - (1.) ACCUSED Chandra Mohan and Madan Mohan who are real brothers, being sons of Late Sri Sant Prasad Tandon, have preferred this revision with the prayer that the order dated 14-10-1986 passed by the learned Magistrate, Ram Sanehi Ghat, Barabanki in Criminal Case No. 411 of 1986 taking cognizance and summoning the accused-revisionist on a complaint filed by Surya Narain Tandon, Opposite party no. 2 under Section 419/420/465/471 IPC be quashed.
(2.) COMPLAINT Annexure No. 1 to this revision was filed in the Magistrate's court on 1-7-85 and 2-7-85 was fixed for recording the statement under Section 200 CrPC. On that date the complainant's statement under Section 200 CrPC was recorded and the case was adjourned to 16-8-85 with the directions that a copy of the complaint be sent to the S.H.O. concerned for investigation under Section 156 (3) CrPC. Thereafter, learned Magistrate continued to adjourn the case till 14th October, 1986 requiring the S.H.O. concerned to complete the investigation and submit his report but when no report was submitted for about a year, then the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused- revisionists by order dated 14-10-86 against which the accused have felt aggrieved and preferred this revision. I have gone through the complaint-Annexure-1 and statements of the witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The complainant's allegation is that there is a temple known as Bara Thakurdwara Temple in the main market of Nawabganj Nagar Paiika near Ghantaghar. The temple owns some immovable property such as residential houses, Khoya Mandi and Mal Godam and it was managed on the basis of a Trust created by Sri Sant Prasad Tandon. Sri Sant Prasad Tandon expired in the year 1979. It is further alleged that since the death of Sri Sant Prasad Tandon performance of Pooja Path etc. in the temple has ceased and the accused-revisionists are dishonestly cheating by personation by realising the rent and mis-appropriating other property of the Trust, dishonestly claiming themselves to be successors of Sri Sant Prasad Tandon, though on a suit by respectable residents of the area, the district Judge has reconstituted the Trust and now the complainant Sri Surya Narain Tandon is President of the Trust and lawful authority to manage the trust. The complainant's allegation is that the accused has misappropriated the property and have dishonestly taken Rs. 1600/- from one Sri Ganga Ram Verma to settle him on the roof of the temple of Sri Hanumanji. The facts disclosed in the complaint have been corroborated in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC so on merits the learned Magistrate was well within the jurisdiction to proceed against the revisionist and summon them vide order dated 14-10-. 986, and on merits I see no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below so as to interfere with it in revision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has drawn may attention towards the order dated 2-7-85 whereby the learned Magistrate has forwarded a copy of the complaint to the S.H.O. concerned for investigating the case and he has done so in exercise of his powers under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 156 of the Code empowers a police officer to investigate any cognizable case and sub-clause (3) thereof empowers the Magistrate who has powers to take cognizance, under Sec. 190 CrPC to order for such an investigation. LEARNED counsel for both the parties agree that in the instant case learned Magistrate was well within his jurisdiction in sending a copy of the complaint to the S.H.O. concerned with the directions to investigate it in exercise of his power under section 156 (3) CrPC so this point does not require any detailed discussion. Though the learned Magistrate adjourned the case after recording statement under Section 200 CrPC on 2-7-85 and issued directions to the S.H.O. concerned for investigation yet strictly speaking he did not pass any consequential order under Section 210 CrPC for staying the proceedings but continued to adjourn the case for a period of about one year awaiting the result of the investigation but when no report was submitted in the court after about one year then he took cognizance and summoned the accused vide order dated 14-10-86.;