- (1.) This misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 22-3-94 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu in Cr. Case No. 35/92 (Vaidya Madanlal v. Om Prakash).
(2.) The case has chequered history. It is the third time that this matter has come to this Court, though it is yet at the initial stage. Vaidya Mandanlal filed criminal complaint against Omprakash and others (petitioners) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana under Sections 406, 420 and 120B, IPC on 28-3-87. The allegations were that Om Prakash was already married yet he caused the complainants to believe that he was unmarried and therefore Shyama was married to him. The Judicial Magistrate after holding enquiry issued process against the petitioners vide order dt. 18-5-87. That order was challenged in this Court by way of misc. petition. The contention of the petitioner was that the Judicial Magistrate of Deedwana had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. This Court vide order dt. 19-11-91 directed the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana to first decide the question of jurisdiction within a period of eight months. Thereafter the learned Magistrate vide order dt. 6-7-92 held that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. He at the same time sent the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for forwarding the same to the Court having jurisdiction. That order was challenged by preferring Misc. Petition No. 313/92 which was decided by this Court on 12-8-92. This Court held that the order of Magistrate sending the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for onward transmission to the competent Court was not according to law. This Court directed the Magistrate to return the complaint to the complainant under Section 201, Cr.P.C. to be presented before the proper Court having jurisdiction. Thereupon the complaint was returned to the complainant who filed the same in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu on 22-10-92. The Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu summoned the petitioners in the case on the basis of the earlier proceedings held in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. On appearance, the accused petitioners filed an application that the cognizance could not be taken against them without recording evidence by the Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu and the cognizance should be set aside. This application was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dt. 22-3-94. It is this order which has been called in question in this misc. petition.
(3.) Mr. Soni, vehemently contended that once this Court had held that the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter the proceedings taken in that Court were without jurisdiction and no cognizance could be taken on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana, and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.;