SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Since identical questions of facts and law are involved in these misc. petitions, the same are being decided by this common order.
(2.) These three misc. petitions have been preferred by the petitioner Prakash Rajpurohit, being the District Collector, Jodhpur, for assailing identical orders dated 22.11.2019, 4.11.2019 and 22.10.2019 passed by the Sr. Civil Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 166 I.P.C. on the complaints forwarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-First, Jodhpur Metropolitan.
(3.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these misc. petitions are noted herein below: The following Execution Cases were pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-First, Jodhpur Metropolitan: Execution Case No. 73/2013 (Shriram Vs. Asuram) Execution Case No. 73/2013 (Rehana Vs. Kumbhsingh) Execution Case No. 10/2008 (Bhomaram Vs. Hanumanram) wherein, recovery warrants had been issued. The learned Tribunal purportedly forwarded numerous communications to the District Collector, Jodhpur for effecting the recovery under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952. It is alleged that despite repeated reminders, the requisite recoveries as directed were not effected and, no response was given to the letters forwarded to the petitioner requiring him to explain the reasons for failure of the recovery proceedings. Thereupon, the learned Tribunal directed its Court Master to register the complaints against the petitioner in the competent Court i.e. the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan. In furtherance of the above directions, the questioned complaints have been instituted and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by the above mentioned orders which are assailed in these three misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ;