AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order dated 23.02.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Atrauli, Aligarh in complaint case No. 468 of 2007 Prem Pal Singh v. Rajesh Kumar and Ors., u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC P.S.-Atrauli, District-Aligarh pending in his Court.
The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that, the complainant opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the accused applicants and the then Village Development Officer under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC stating therein that accused applicants No. 1 & 2 are Gram Pradhan of Village-Ganiawali, P.S.-Atrauli and accused applicant No. 3 Satish Chandra is a member of the Block Development Committee. It has been alleged that all the accused hatched a conspiracy and prepared B.P.L. Ration cards of 10 persons mentioned in the complaint who have sufficient land with them, and they are not below the poverty line. It was also alleged that photographs of some other persons were affixed on the ration cards of these persons. The complainant besides examining himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. produced Idrish, Kurban Ali and Rameshwar u/s 202 Cr.P.C., Idrish stated that the accused had obtained his photograph and affixed it on the ration card of Om Prakash, and in the ration cards, interpolations were made in respect of names of ration card holders. After recording statement of the complainant and witnesses u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate was of the view that the offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC were made out against the accused persons. He therefore, summoned the accused for the above offences. Against that order, Rajesh Kumar, his wife Kaushalya Devi, and Satish Chandra alias Satish Kumar (accused applicants No. 1 to 3) have filed this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.
Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants in the complaint, I am of the view that the proper Course for the Magistrate was to order for investigation by the police because the allegations in the complaint were of serious nature involving offences of forgery and preparation of fictitious ration cards of persons not below poverty line, on such a large scale that a thorough investigation by an investigating agency was required in the matter. The Magistrate has got an option to treat the complaint filed before him as an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., if he is of the view that thorough investigation by the police is required in the matter, and taking into consideration the facts alleged in the complaint it was the proper procedure which could have been adopted by him.
The accused have also taken a plea that they are Gram Pradhan and member of Block Development Committee. It has also been alleged that it was the duty of the Gram Vikas Adhikari to prepare a list of the persons entitled to ration card of the category below poverty line. It was also contended that the accused applicants are public servants and if they prepared or issued wrong ration cards in favour of those persons who are not entitled for it, this act was done by them while discharging their duties as a public servant and so sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is also essential for their prosecution but the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against them without that sanction and so the order passed by him is vitiated.
Without expressing any final opinion on this plea, I am of the view that since I am remanding this matter to the learned Magistrate after setting-aside the summoning order passed by him with a direction for taking action u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., this aspect of requirement of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. shall also be considered by the investigating agency at the time of submitting the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.
The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is, therefore, set-aside, and the matter is remanded to the Magistrate for treating the complaint of opposite party No. 2 as an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and then to pass suitable orders on it in accordance with law in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of accordingly.