dD APPLICANT/: (Con'ipjainant) HI©HCOURT OF CHHATTIS^RI-I. BILASPUR CriminaJ Revision No. 828 of 2000 Suni! Tiwari, S/o Shri R-K. Tiwari, a9ed about 24 years,R/o Bhanpuri, P.S Bhanpuri, Tehsi! jQQdaipur, Distt. Qastar, MP (now C&\ NON-APPLICANTS: Versus Shri Komal Sahu, Gaed about 35 years/ Asstt, Sub-Inspector, Poiice Station Bhanpuri, Teh^il Jagddpur, Distt. Bastar, MP (now CG). Shri Naresh Dubey, aged about 40 years, A^stt. Sub-Inspector, SH.O,, P,S. Shanpuri, Tehsif Jagdalpur, Distt'< Bastar, MP (now CS) {CriminGi revision under Section 397 read wlth Section 401 of the Code of Cnminai Procedure; 1973} Present: AAr. Prafuli Bharat, counsel for the applicant. Mr* KS. Potel, counsei for the non-applicants. SinoSe Bench: Honbl®Mr. T.P. Shornio, J. OftALORDEft (Passed on 28th Augu-st, 2008) 1, This petition is directed Ggainst the order dated 16-3-2000 pQssed by the Chief Judiciai MagistrQte, jGgdaipur in Criminal Case No.519/2000 whereby JeGmed Chief Judiciai Magistrote has taken cognizance, against the non- applicants on the complaint of the applicant, only of offence punishGble under Sectlons 294 & 506 of the I*P,C, but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not taken coanizance of offence punishable under Sections 196,167, 219, 471 <&109oftheI.P.C ..^T^ ¥• 2. The order Is chalienged on the ground that the Gpplicant has adduced sufficient material for taking coqnizance and issuGnce of process Q9dnst the non-applicGnts for offence punishable under Sections 196/167, 219, 471,109/ 294 <& 506 of the LP.C, but the trial Court has iilegally not taken coanizance against the non--appiicGnt of the aforesdd offences. 3, I have heard learned counsei for the part'ies, perused the order impugned and also the mcrt'erial ayaiiable on record. 4. It is argued on behalf of the appiicGnt thot Istegasha under Sections 41 (2) <& 110 of the Cr\P.C. was fited by the non-applicants who are the police officers posted in Poiice Station Bhanpuri, aaainst the applicGnt. They have filed copy of the crime register showing that Crime No,72/96 has been registered again^t the present appiicant namely, Sunii Tiwari for offence punishable under Section 435 of the I.P.C., but for the same offence i.e. Crime No.72/96 one AniJ Tiwari has faced trial before the Judiciai AAa9istrate, First Class/ Jagdaipur In Crimina! Case No.1427/96 and said Ansi Tiwari was acquitted of the said charge on 13-1-1998. After the Gcquittai of Anil Tiwari, the non- applicants have knowingly concocted the forged documents relating to registration of offence and flled Istegasha NoJS/4/99 agdnst the applicant and aiso intimidGted and insuited the applicant. 5. On the other hand/the impugned order is ^upported on behalf of the non- applicants, 6. The order impugned dated 16-3-2000 shows that after perusal of the copy of the complaint, documents and thestatement recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P,C., the tria! Court has found prima facie case against the non- applicants for offence punishable under Sections 294 <& 506 of the I.P-C and ^•^^^ ^^.^% "^. .;<y>' '"''' '% K' ft^.^^^^ i ^'s/' the Courr has is^ued process against the non-applicants. According to the case of the applicant and copy of the complQint which is filed on 13-1-2000/ the non-applicants have fiJed Istegasha-aaainst the applicant on 31-8-1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdaipur for initiation of proceeding under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. After filing of the Istegasha the present applicant had fjled comptaint awmst the non-applicGnts for offence punjshable under the aforesaid offences, alleging thot the non-applicants had knowingly forged the documents <& the Roznamcha., and had filed forged document of copy of crime register before the Sub Divisional AAG9istrate with a view to prosecute the appticant. The applicant has not fiJed any copy of the Istegasha or any copy of the crime reaister obtained from the Police Station, but has filed copy of the crime register which was alleQed to have been filed by the non-applicants before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate* 7, The applicant has examined himself and two witnesse^ namely, Thaneshwar Mahendra Sinha (PW-2) & Anii Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) before taking cognizance by the AAagistrate, In his statement recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant has stated that the non-appiicants insulted him by using thz word^ viz., "^}^^^ 3^ c^t ^n ^^dl t/ W^ ^ ^cr ^ ^raT ^Tn- ^HT 1TPTc[T T, f^W^ ^RT ^ftcFf s}\{<s|!<4 fr \jll^^t". He has further stated that non-applicGnt No.l has made a false case, collected forged documents, also made faisely entry in the Roznamcha Sanha and filed charge sheet Ggainst the aDplicant under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. before the, Sub Divisionat Magistrate, Jagdalpur. Thaneshwar Mahendra Sinha (PW-2) has support-ed the statement of the appiicant and stated that the non-appticants had used the words I^{^\'T?ICJ, 3PT^T •c^ ^TT '<?ffl?mT t, W^f ^ ^Tcr ^ WgT '^TT ^?n ^RFTcTI .^> <s|T1}y{i, f^FT^ ^T ^t^T <s}^}^ ^r \jTT^TT[" and intimidated the applicant. But, Anii Kumar Tiwari (PW-3) has said that the case was reoistered aaainst him before the Judicial AAagistrate, First CIass, Jagdalpur which was registered under Crime No.72/96 at Police Station Bhanpuri in which he was acquitted vide judgment dart-ed 13-1-1998. 8. The applicant has not adduced any evidence to the effect thot in the year 1996 these non-appticants were po^t-ed at Police Station Bhanpuri or that as to when they have forged or concocted the documents, even the Gpplicant has not filed any copy of the documents to that effect. The applicant has not obtdned any copy from the Police Station to show that whether the registrGtion register was tampered or forged by any person or by the non- applicants. The applicant is required to show prima facie material adduced at the time of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 196, 167, 219, 471 & 109 of the I.P.C. against the non-applicants. But even after giving opportunity to adduce evidence the applicant has not adduced ony evidence to this effect for taking cognizance of the Gforesaid offences. The trial Court has rightly not taken cognizance of the said offences in absence of any material. 9. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 294 of the I.P.C. on the basis of the statement of the Gppiicant & Thaneshwar Mahendra Sinha (PW-2) that the words "^J^^TJI^ srq^ ^ crar WT?T?TT t, 'm^ ^T ^cT "^r W^T ^TT t?TT TrTTcrT i^HT, f^RT^ ^T ^1^" sj^lc^ ?t The afor&said word^ have no literary means and ^ignificQnce. In order to constitute offence punishabie under Section 294 of the I.P<C the prosecution is required to s\\om pHma facie that as to who has used the e^ Soma obscene words or committed obscene act in public place with a view to Gnnoy others. In absence of any obscene words, the order takinq cognizance of offence punishQble under Section 294 of the IP.C by the Magistrat-e suffers from iiIeQGlity* 10. Consequently, the instant revision filed on behGlf of the appiicGnt is dismissed in limine, However, in exercise of revisiona! jurisdiction the order impugned is modified ond the order taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 294 of the I.P<C is hereby set aside. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^> ^,