- (1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No.341/2009 (M/s Ahimsa mines & Minerals Limited and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan & others) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 17, Jaipur city, Jaipur in FIR No. 155/2006 and in Titamba FR No.74/2006 has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioners filed a criminal complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 17, Jaipur city, Jaipur against Mahaveer Prasad Jain, Narendra Kumar Jain and Proshanto Kumar Roy alleging therein that the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy against the complainant and in pursuance thereof complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short to be referred as, 'the Act') was filed in Guahati Court. It was also alleged that the accused, for service on the complainant, obtained dasti summons from the court and pretended that they sent the summons through courier on 8.12.2003. On the basis of courier receipt which was submitted in the court warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. It was also alleged that the envelop which was sent through courier was not containing summons of the court, there were some other papers kept in the envelop and on the basis of false documents produced in the court managed to get issued the bail-able warrant against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner committed an of-fence under sections 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470 and 471 IPC. The learned trial court sent the complaint to the concerned police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police after completion of investigation filed nega-tive final report. The petitioner submited a protest petition. The learned trial court again directed the investigating agency to further investigate the matter on certain points. The investigating officer of the case again submitted negative final report on 17.2.2008. The learned trial court after hearing petitioner on his protest petition found that the alleged forgery stated by the complainant in the case was in relation to the proceedings pending in Guahati Court, there-fore, the court at Jaipur has no jurisdiction in the matter. The trial court further found that the alleged forgery was in relation to a criminal complaint filed in Guahati Court and the Guahati Court was mislead by the accused, therefore, the court at Guahati only was competent to pass appropriate order. The trial court further found that since the alleged forged documents were produced in the Magistrate Court at Guahati, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C. the court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction. The trial court in view of the above findings rejected the protest petition vide order dated 21.5.2009. The petitioner having felt aggrieved preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur city Jaipur on 18.5.2010. Hence, the present petition has been filed. I have heard the petitioner who is present in person at admission stage of the petition.
(2.) It has been submitted by the petitioner that the two courts below have not properly appreciated the legal aspect of the matter. It is submitted that since by filing forged documents in Guahati Court, bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner who is residing at Jaipur, therefore, the Jaipur court had jurisdic- tion in the matter. It is also submitted that there is danger of life of the peti-tioner if he attends the court at Guahati as ULFA had previously attempted to murder him. It is submitted that though the Hon'ble Apex Court has transferred the case filed by the accused from Guahati to Delhi but still in view of the fact that the accused Mahaverr Prasad Jain, Narendra Kumar Jain and Prashanto Kumar Roy entered into a criminal conspiracy and committed forgery in rela-tion to the documents submitted in that court so that the court would believe that the complainant was served properly, therefore, the court at Jaipur was competent to examine the matter. I have considered the submissions made before me.
(3.) The learned trial court as well as learned revisional court both have con-sidered the legal aspect of the matter by passing a reasoned detailed order. On two occasions, the matter has been investigated by the police. The trial court finding that the alleged forgery was in relation to a criminal complaint filed under section 138 of the Act at Guahati and in that criminal complaint some forged documents were filed, therefore, the court at Jaipur was not having any juris-diction, in my opinion, is proper appreciation of the legal aspect involved in the case. Even as per the submissions made by the petitioner, the criminal com-plaint filed at Guahati Court against the petitioner has now been transferred to Delhi by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the complaint which was filed under section 138 of the Act is pending for trial then it cannot be said that in relation to the proceedings pending either in Guahati Court or at Delhi court where the complaint under section 138 of the Act has been transferred, the court at Jaipur will have any jurisdiction in the matter. The submissions made by the petitioner are liable to be rejected and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.;