PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment dated 14.06.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (Raj.) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 84/2011 whereby he partly accepted the revision petition filed by the revision/accused and set aside the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi vide order dated 03.01.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 05/2011 (FIR No. 39/2010), Police Station Sirohi under Section 465 IPC however, maintaining the cognizance taken by him against the respondent/accused under Section 501 IPC.
(2.) That the complaint was filed by the petitioner for the offence under Sections 468, 469, 471 and 501 IPC making allegation that the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to District Collector Sirohi on 29.01.2009 making a complaint against the present petitioner on the name of "Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh Pragatisheel". The petitioner posed himself as a President of Shikshak Shangh. The petitioner suffered complaints of harassing the women employees. On the FIR, the investigation was completed and final report/closure report was submitted on 02.06.2010 against which the petitioner preferred a protest petition and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi took cognizance against the present accused vide order dated 03.11.2011 under Section 465 and 501 IPC. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a revision against the said order dated and the revisionary court passed an order upholding the cognizance under Section 501 but excluded the provisions of Section 465 IPC. The learned revisionary court has partly allowed the revision petition on account of the fact that the Section 465 would not made out as the respondent claimed to be office bearer of "Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh Pragatisheel" whereas no such Sangh was registered and was having any kind of recognition as also reflected in the RTI information received by the concerned police station vide letter dated 19.04.2010. Thus, the revisionary court has held that when the Sangh itself was not registered and having no recognition then there was no question of forgery as the accused has not committed any forgery under Section 463 IPC.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sangh letter head was forged and therefore, the revisionary court order is bad in the eye of law.;