VYAS, J. - (1.) BY way of filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23. 3. 2006 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 9/2006.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although no case is made out against the petitioner, learned trial Court has passed the order of cognizance. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of the learned trial Judge, summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied its mind to the facts of the case and he has examined the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence in support thereof. As per the counsel for the petitioner in the instant case neither there is any basis for taking cognizance nor any ingredients of offending section are attracted against the petitioner. There is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime, therefore, initiating the criminal proceedings and registering a criminal case against the petitioner and putting him to face the trial is totally abuse of process of law and the order impugned deserves to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised certain grounds with regard tot he factual aspect of the matter and emphasized mainly on the ground that the learned Special Judge has not even mentioned a word for taking cognizance in the order impugned. IT was incumbent upon the trial Court to at least show in the order that it has applied its mind on the basis of the record to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is required to be discharged because there is no material against him to proceed with the trial. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Shravan Lal, the then Tehsildar, Nagaur, has issued charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules to Bhanwara Ram Meghwal, UDC on 1. 8. 2000 on many charges and amongst which charge No. 5 was that said Bhanwara Ram, UDC, Tehsil Office Nagaur has drawn an office order in his own hand writing in pursuance to the judgment dated 22. 6. 1996 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer, directing the patwari Nagaur by office order No. 95/430 dated 5. 7. 1996 for entering the land bearing Khasra No. 61 measuring 29 bighas 16 biswa of revenue village Nakaas in the name of Manroop Ram. According to the petitioner, it clearly shows that it was only late Bhanwara Ram and none else who made forgery and if at all it was done so then in no case, the petitioner can be held guilty or liable for the alleged forgery. It is also contended that there is no alleged forged documents on record moreover there is no photocopy of it to show the very basis of initiation of the case. The Department has prima facie held late Bhanwara Ram, UDC guilty and departmental proceedings were initiated against him but because of his demise the petitioner cannot be dragged into the prosecution to face the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court towards the judgment in case of Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Sambhaji Ram Scindia, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, in case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in (1998) Cr. L. R. (SC) 18, in case of Dr. N. S. Kothari vs. State of Raj. , reported in 2004 (2) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 948 and further in case of Ashok Chaturvedi vs. Shitul H. , reported in (1998) 7 SCC 698 and prayed that the proceedings can be quashed at initial stage when according to the facts of the case, there is complete abuse of process of the Court. Further under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, even cognizance order can be quashed by the High Court and while emphasizing upon the case of Dr. N. S. Kothari vs. State of Raj. (supra), it is contended that when no offence is made out even FIR can be quashed. Therefore, on both the legal and factual aspect of the matter, it is a fit case for quashing of the order dated 23. 3. 2006 passed by learned Special Judge taking cognizance against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that in this case after registering of FIR, a thorough investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed under Section 173 Cr. P. C. against the petitioner and he is free to raise all his objection at the time of framing charges. It is also contended by learned Public Prosecutor that if after perusing the charge-sheet, the learned trial Judge has passed the order to register the case, it will be presumed that it has applied its mind while passing such an order. It is not necessary for the trial judge to pass an elaborated order when after investigation, the Anti-corruption Department has filed challan against the petitioner. The order for registering the case is sufficient to show that cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Judge upon the challan filed by the Anti-Corruption Department under Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. Therefore, there is no error in the order and if at all upon the facts of the case, the petitioner wants to raise his voice, then, it is always upon for him to raise all his grievance at the time of framing of charges. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the impugned order as also the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) IN the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23. 3. 2006 passed by Special Judge, registering the case upon the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr. P. C. The words Eqdnek ntz jftlvj gksa** are sufficient at the state of accepting the chargesheet for initiation of trial. When the trial Court is passing order that the case may be registered, it is obvious that the trial Court has applied its mind towards the finding of the investigation. When the challan is filed after thorough investigation, it is not necessary for the trial Court to pass an elaborated order or to adjudicate the evidence which is collected by the prosecution for the purpose of prosecuting the accused. The liberties are required to be given to the prosecution to prove the case by way of leading evidence before the court, therefore, at the initial stage, if any order is passed upon the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution to register the case, then, it can very well be said that the learned trial Court has applied its mind and took decision for registering the case. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner with regard to giving reasons and passing an elaborated order have no substance because in this case after registering the case, the Anti Corruption Department has filed challan on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation. Likewise with regard to quashing of the order upon the facts of the case, in my opinion, when the legislature has purposefully provided opportunity to the accused to raise his grounds for discharge before framing of charges, then obviously, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to consider the arguments and grounds before framing of charges in accordance with Section 239 Cr. P. C. If upon considering the police report, documents on record and the grounds raised by accused, the Magistrate considers that there is no evidence against the accused, he can discharge him while recording reasons for doing so and if evidence is there, then, of course charge can be framed against the accused meaning thereby the legislature has provided opportunity to the accused in the event of filing challan against him under Section 173 Cr. P. C. Thus, it is not proper to interfere with the procedure at the stage when challan has been filed after completion of investigation under Section 173 Cr. P. C. Therefore, the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to no evidence can be raised by him at the time of framing charge, which is just next stage after passing of the impugned order. ;