Tlbrewal, J. - (1.) THE above petitions, filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. , may be disposed of together by a common order as they arise from the same case.
(2.) IN short the facts arc : Mohammed Yasin (hereinafter to be referred as the 'complainant') made a report at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur on August 22, 1981. On this report, crime No. 444/81 was registered under sections 420, 468 and 471 I. P. C. The said report was against Sohan Lal (hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused') and his brother Prahlad (since deceased ). IN the said report, the complainant alleged that he was having a non-temporary stage carriage permit for the route 'sikar-Juliasar Ki-Piou' and the bus bearing registration No. RJI 1150 was purchased by him from the accused Sohan Lal. He further stated that the accused was working as his driver on the aforesaid bus and plied the same on the aforesaid route on his behalf. The accused and his brother forged an agreement to sale and a power of attorney in their favour, after forging the signatures of the complainant and on the basis of those documents, got the registration of the bus transferred in their name. The case of the complainant was that he did not execute any agreement to sale, as well as, any power of attorney in favour of the accused. After registration of the case, the police investigated the matter and, thereafter, submitted a negative report under section 169 Cr. P. C. on March 24, 1982. In the course of investigation, the complainant had approached to the higher authorities and got the orders for the investigation by the C. I. D. (C. B. ). It appears that before the investigation could be completed by the C. I. D. (C. B.) the local police submitted the negative report. On the negative report submitted by the local police, before any order could be passed by the concerned Magistrate, the C. I. D. (C. B.) also completed its investigation and it also submitted a negative report under Section 169 Cr. P. C. on Sept. 5, 1986. The complainant had also filed a complaint on the same facts in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur on April 7, 1982. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused Sohan Lal and his brother Prahlad under sections 379, 420, 468 and 471 I. P. C. vide his order dated Sept. 26, 1983, after disagreeing with the negative report submitted by the local police, as well as, by the C. I. D. (C. B. ). Against the aforesaid order taking cognizance, the accused Sohan Lal and his brother filed a revision which was heard and disposed of by the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 82/83 (168/83 ). The said revision was allowed by the learned Judge holding that there was no ground to proceed against the accused persons. While accepting the revision, the learned Judge also observed that from the report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, it was clear that the signatures of the complainant on the agreement to sale, as well as, the power of attorney were not forged as those signatures tallied with the specimen signature of the complainant. This order was passed by the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on December 7, 1983. Against this order, the complainant has filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542/89 before this Court on May 5, 1989 i. e. after five and half years of the said order. It appears that the learned Magistrate then proceeded on the private complaint filed by the complainant. After recording the statement of the complainant and his three witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. he issued process against the accused Sohan Lal and his brother Prahlad on Dec. 21, 1985 for the offence under sections 420, 468 and 471 I. P. C. Against this order, the revision was dismissed by the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on June 14, 1988 holding that the revision is not maintainable as the order taking cognizance is interlocutory order. Against this order, the accused Sohan Lal has filed a Criminal Misc. Petition No. 585/1988 before this Court on July 16,1988.
(3.) I have heard Mr. R. N. Munshi, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. R. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the accused. The main contention of Mr. Munshi is that the order of the Magistrate dated Sept. 26, 1983, which he has taken cognizance against the accused Sohan Lal and his brother was an interlocutory order and the revision preferred by the accused and his brother against the said order was not maintainable, as such, the order passed in Revision No. 82/83 by Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on December 7, 1983 was also without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. even though the petition has been preferred by the complainant after live and half years. He further argued that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate was not required to give reasons for dis-agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the police on its investigation or examine evidence meticulously. On the other hand, Mr. Yadav learned counsel for the accused urged that the order taking cognizance on the complainant by the Magistrate was a final order and the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge committed an error of law in rejecting the revision holding that the same was not maintainable on the ground of its being interlocutory order. He also argued that the petition filed by the complainant should be rejected on the simple ground that it has been filed after five and half years of the order of Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge. ;