AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Accused-petitioner Ramesh Kumar Pahadiya has preferred instant S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 240/2014 against the order dated
19.5.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Lakheri District Bundi praying to quash order of upholding cognizance against the present petitioner under
Sections 120B, 200, 417, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the basis of same set of evidence one of the co-accused has already been discharged and
cognizance has been taken against another one present petitioner. It has further been contended that cognizance has also been resorted under
Section 120B of IPC against single petitioner Ramesh Kumar Pahadiya, which is also not tenable under the provisions of law, Revenue
authority/Patwari to whom alleged documents are stated to have been tendered, has not been examined, nevertheless learned court below, while
discharging one of the co-accused Babulal, has wrongly taken cognizance against the present petitioner, which is required to be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no flaw in the impugned order.
Heard both the sides and perused the record.
Perusal of complaint shows that it has got pleadings that Ramesh Kumar son of Ganga Ram lodged a complaint against Ramesh Pahadiya son of
Prabhu Lal and Babulal son of Raghunath that wife of the complainant was enticed away by the Ramesh Pahadiya alongwith his two kids Manal and
Rahul and Ramesh Pahadiya tried to get certificates of domicile, caste and income issued from the Office of the Tehsildar, Indragarh and tendered the
same before the concerned authority by fake signatures and on information of Patwari, he went to the house of Patwari, witnessing him, both the
accused persons fled away from the house of Patwari.
Perusal of statement of complainant Ramesh Kumar son of Ganga Ram also discloses that the said papers/documents were handed over to
complainant Ramesh by Patwari, itself.
It is worthy to be mentioned that said Revenue authority, Patwari has not been produced in the evidence before the court below, who could have been
an important witness to fortify allegations of the petitioner in respect of as to who had tendered him the documents and who had signed those papers,
how and why Patwari tendered all the papers to the complainant without taking any action against the accused persons himself, who had presented
alleged documents for issuance of certain certificates under personification being impostor signatory. It is also important that both complainant and
accused no.1 are having similar name, signatures of Ramesh available on the alleged application/proforma has also not been verified by any
handwriting expert or FSL, it is also not evident as to what detriment has caused to the complainant Ramesh son of Ganga Ram by tendering of such
application forms before Tehsildar, Indragarh, serious allegation of an abortive attempt for grant of scholarship, which too in the name of both kids of
the complainant have been levelled without showing any detriment.
Learned trial court, while passing order dated 19.5.2011 has taken cognizance against two accused persons, namely Ramesh Pahadiya and Babulal
Pahadiya and revisional court vide order dated 12.9.2013 has quashed order of cognizance against one of the accused person, namely Babulal but has
sustained order against accused Ramesh Pahadiya for the offence under Section 120B, 200, 417, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, which exfacie is not
maintainable since learned revisional court has upheld the offence under Section 120B of IPC against solo accused person.
Provisions of law can never be a mechanism to impinge vendetta. Nothing is there on the record to demonstrate as to what detriment has been
caused to complainant Ramesh son of Ganga Ram. Vital was the testimony of Patwari to whom alleged applications for grant of certain certificates
were tendered has not been recorded nor any FSL or opinion of handwriting expert has been obtained and on appreciation of same set of evidence,
one of the accused person has been discharged, whereas another has been held to be prima facie liable. Furthermore, learned revisional court has
acted erroneously by upholding the cognizance under Section 120B of IPC despite there being a solo accused person.
In view of the discussion hereinbefore, instant petition deserves to be allowed, hence order impugned passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bundi in
Criminal Revision No.133/2011 dated 12.09.2013 as well as order dated 19.5.2011 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Lakheri District Bundi,
are quashed and order of cognizance passed by trial court is set aside.
The petition is accordingly allowed.