PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Revision Case No. 06/2016 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 345/2006 by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance and framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 211 IPC.
(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the spirit of Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973 in case the cognizance and charges are to be farmed under Section 211 IPC, then a notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing with a preliminary inquiry is necessary.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied the judgment of Gheesu Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 276 and Sanjiv Arora v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006 (3) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 1313. The relevant portion of judgment rendered in Gheesu Lal (supra) reads as under: "11. There is another reason for quashing the proceedings. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not himself take cognizance of the offence under Section 211 IPC on the basis of the complaint which he had himself signed as the case before him was not covered by any exception to the general rule that the complainant should not act as a Judge in his own cost. Sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973 clearly provide in clause (c) that the complaint is to be sent to the Magistrate of first class having jurisdiction. By implication, the general rule laid down in Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973 requires that the Court making the complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973 should be sent to the first class Magistrate for necessary action. Section 352 Cr.P.C., 1973 provides that; "Except as provided in Sections 344, 345, 349 and 350, no Judge of a Criminal Court (other than a Judge of a High Court) or Magistrate shall try any person for any offence referred to in Section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority, or is brought under his notice as such Judge or Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceedings." 12. On a careful consideration, I am, of the opinion that u/Cl.(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have taken cognizance on the basis of the complaint signed by himself. He should have forwarded the complaint to a Magistrate of first class having jurisdiction. 13. For the above reasons the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order dated 1.5.1986 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for initiating proceedings against the petitioner by taking cognizance in respect of the offence punishable under Section 211 IPC and the impugned order dated 09.07.1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in criminal case No. 674/86 State v. Gheesu Lal whereby the application filed by the petitioner was rejected, are hereby quashed and set aside and the proceedings against the petitioner are hereby dropped." ;