teiA?^, S?n'-T,- "a ^^'; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NQ.^55 OF2QQ6 APPLICA k ilu ^. A- NON-APPLICANTS - Smt. Shakila Begum, aged about 40 years, Wife of Juber Ahmed, •». Resident of Old Bus Stand, Main t... •sfl» Q^'-^ffiA-1 ...... Road, Pendra Road, PoliceStation 'o.iM HQuse Pendra Road, District Bflaspur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G-). Smt. Geeta Gupta, aged about 45 years, Wife of Shri Madan Lal Gupta, Resident of Near State Bank, Rest House Road, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Gyan Singh Otti, ageda bout 60 years, Retired Tahsildar, Resident of Village Bhadi, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.). CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER 397 READ WITH 401 OFTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 "!-gff3 ilill S ^^.'^•^te^^'^^^^^^^^^^^^^s^^^;. i:^;?eSS;K"^^S"'SES?'i.-'-' •'.•'.'•"'•'• ^•^•^^^T-^.^^^?^'l^^;;'"-. •'..'"; ^^^^^^;^^^^^'^^.;":-:^r ViSK HI6H COURT OF fcHHATHSeARH AT BILASPUR Cr. Revision No.244/Z006 Smt. Shakila Begum i Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and two others v- .^•^ PostforOrder: /? .07.2006 SW'St. Sd-/' Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judae M HI6H C.OURT OF CHHATHSeARH AT WLA9PW. Cr.Revislon No.244/2006 Before : Hon'bte Shri Ditip Raosahcb &eriwiUl<h, 3. Smt. Shakila Begum Vs. State of Chhott^garh ond -hmo elhers 8wi Adiok Soro.Counsel for Ihe applicont Aivocflte- Shri Ashish Shukla, fiovemment^for the State/norwppliccnt No.t Siri Rajesh Pandey, Counsel for •the non-opplioant No.2. Shri Sourabh Dongi, Counsel for the a{^>licont No.3. ORDER (Passedonl T.07.2006) This Crminal Reviswn is directed against the or'der dated 23 Moa-ch 2006 passed by Shri Ramadi<mkar Prosad, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pendra Road in Criminal Revision No. 47/2(X)6 whereby -the dismissat of cn unregistered conylaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. (fifed by -the non-applicont No.2 herein) vide order dated 9.1.2006 passed by Ihe Judiciol Magistrote First Closs, Rendru Road, was set aside. 2. Brief facts are that on 27.4.2005 a coi^Aiint was filed b^'fhe non-oppliccnt No.2 herein under Sedwn 4(>6 w4 420 of the I.P.C. before the Judickrf oys^wt& Fir^ff Class, Pendro Road. It wss alteged til'wt in the eletft-k»nto the postof the President of the Nagar Panchc^6t, Suurela. •the appticant herein had incollusion with -the non- c^plicontNo.3 herein, Ihe then Naib Tchsildar, Pendru ftond FEW^ ^s.' |?1 !K:SS^ iM:,,rr. obtained ond filed with her nomination papers, a forged caste \. cert'ificate purporting to have been isaied Revenue Case No.208/B- 121/03-04, dated 1.9.2004. 3. The comphinant examined herself under Section 200 CrP.C. on 7.12.2005 and did not lead any further evidence in support' of the compktint. On 6.1.2005 the^comphinont fifed certain documents to ^:^ substontiate that ds per register of Revenue Coses for the year 2(X)3-04 maintained in the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Pendpa Road, no aich caste certificate, as mentioned aforesaid, had been issued by the non<pplicont No.3 herem. 4. The leamed Judicial Mcgistrate First Class after hearmg the arguments held that •the comphinant had merely filed some photocopies of the caste certificate alleged to have been isawd by 1he non-cyplicant No.3 herein in collusion with the applicmt herein for being uffid at the time of filing •the nomination pcpers in the afonesaid etection. The leamed AAcgistrate held •Hiat no inference could be drawn against -Hie applicant on the basis of the photocopies of -the aforesaid caste certificate. It also held that the comptainoOTt despite being given an opportunity did not tead any evidence m support of her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence the comptaint wos liable to be disraissed. 5. The non-applicant No.2 herein preferred a Crimmal Revision against the aforesaid order and surreptitiously did not jom the opplicant and the non-applicants No. 3 Kerein or the non-dpplicant No.l State of Chhattisgarh ds re^iondents. In •the revision it was shown that there was no reqaondent. The revisional Court ignored the Bil • ^^^^^ S?!lg"iSifl—SI8SISSSB .nsxsv-n, aforesaid fact and after perusing the certified copies of the \ documents fited by the cbmplainant on 6.1,2005 came to the conclusion that in the revenye case register for the year 2003-04 of Ihe Court' of Naib Tahsildar of Pendra Rood no ccse was registered in the name of applicant hereh-Siaktla Begum at serial No.2(®-Band drew a conclusion that the allegations in the complaint prima -facie revealed an offence under Section 468,. and 471 I.P.C. whereas the complaffit <f, ,;':; was initially filed foroffence'uhder Section 466 eand 420 of -Ihe I.P.C. Consequently, the order dated 9.1.2(X)6 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road was set aside. 6. In this Revision, it was urged by the leamed counsel for the appliccuit while support-mg the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the J.M.F.C., that the evidence of the compkiinant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. did not disclcse the commission of on offence as alteged by •the comphinant. Shri Adiish Shukta, teamed Sovemment AdvocatB and also Shri Saurobh Dcngi, leamed counsel for non-a(q>liccnt No.3 argued in support- of the Order dated 9.1.2<X)6 passed by Ihe Judicial AAagistrate First Class, Pendra Road. On the o'ther hond, leamed counsel for the non-qiplicont No.2 urged that Ihe documents filed by tte compkiinant on 6.1.2(X)5 cleoB'ly revealed that the dppliomt herein hiid, in collusion with the non-o^plicant No.3, got a bocps caste certificate issued in her favour and had used it white filing the nomination papers in •the aforesaid election. It was urged that the test under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for dismissal of a complaint was not satisfied, and •ttierefore, the first revisional Courf' was wholly justified in setfring oside the impugned Srder. It wais also urged that in the event this Court came to the conclusion •thut there was no sufficient evidence to justify isaicnce of process agohst the 4 opplicant ond non-appliaint No.3 herein, this Court' may, while remcnding the matter to the Judicial AAagistrate First Class, Pendro Road, order further enquiry and direct the J.M.F.C., Pendra Road to give an opportunity to the non-cpplicant No.2 herem to adduce evidence under Section 2(X) Cr.P.C. ^n 7. Having heard rival subn?|ssions, I have perused •the record. .;<:; Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides that a AAagistrate taking cogniznnce ofon offence on compbint diall examine upon oatii -the compkunant ond -the witnesses present, if any, cand 1he substance of such examination ahatl be reduced to writmg and shall be signed by •the compkimant ond -the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. Sect-ion 203 Cr.PjC. is as follows: '203. Disnussal af awp^htt.—If, after considermg the stntemenfs on oath Qf any) of the comploinont and of •rire witnesses ond -the resuit of •the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Mtigistrate is of opinion •Ihat tiiere is no sufficient ground for proceedin9, he riialt dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he ^iall briefly record his reasons for so doing." Thus, before dismissing the compfaint under Sectitm 203 Cr.P.C. the Magistrote has to consider -the following: a) Statement on oatii, (if any) of the complamcnt; b) Statement on oath, (if any) of Ihe witnesses; cnd c) The reailt of the enquiry or investigation under Seetwn 202 Cr.P.C. 8. In the present case, vicfe order dated 27.4.20(ffi the Mogistrate had directed the concemed Police Station to report' whether any action had been taken on the report- lodged by •the cpmpbinant at Police Station, Saurela. On 1.6.2005 a report' wasant W*SKs^ from Police Station ficurela Ihat the report of -the non-qiplicant No.2 herein vms being enquired into. A further direction wos given on 1.6.2005 to 5.H.O. Police Station ficureta to inform whelher a first information report had been registered at Potice Station on the complaint of non-applicant No.2 herein. On 4.6.2(X)5 a report waS received from Police Station, Saureta thoA first 'information report had not been registered o^the con^laint of -the non-opplicant No.2 herein. On 7.6.2005 an application was filed by the complameBrt- requesting the AAngistrate to order investigation in Ihe con^ilaint lodged by the non-oppliccnt No.2 herein wider Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. However, the leamed Judickil AAagistrate First Chss did not dee.is it fit to exercise discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. <aid proceeded to gwe cn opporhjnity to the complainant to oulthtce caiy evidenoe under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in support- of the complaint, if she so desired. The orcfer dated 7.6.2005 is not uider diallen^ in -this pevisjon. 9. In •this view of the niatter, sinoe the complainant did not adAice evidence 'of'tBiy wilnesses de^iite being givai an opporhmity by Ihe lecmed trial Judge, the dismissal of -the complaint by •the leomed Judiciat Magistrate prst Cbss has to be tested only on -the toudt stone of 1+ie statement on oath of -the complainoa'it and the documents fited by the complainont. 10. The complamont had in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C, staled that -the cert-ificnte submitted by tiie applicant herein was numbered as 228. There is a positive assertion to Ihat effect by the complainont in her statement under Section 200 Crf.C. Despite sufficient time having elcysed after •the filing of compfaint on 6 27.4.ZO)5 and before the order dated 9.1.2006. no efforts were \ made by the com(ifaunant to requisition the (art-ificate fited by the appliccnt herein before the Retuming Officer or to get a report- submitted in that regard. During the course of -t+ie arguments, it was urged that cn application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. had been filed before the J.AA.F.C. Pendra Road for requisitioning the Tahsildar and Retuming Officer, Pendra Road ^i'th the relevont documents. x However, this opplication does not bear any date of filing or any endors&ment by the Atogistrate. The order dieets also do not show that any such application was filed by -the complainant before 9.1.2006 i.e. the date of -the impugned order. It may be Ihat sych an application came to be fifed at some point of time after the imjwgned order dated 23.3.2006 was passed by the Additionat Sessions Ju<^e. Pendra Road, in Criminal Revision No.47/2006. Therefore, it does not aibstantiate -the contention of the leamed counsel for the d^ilicent m any manner. 11. If the statenant on oath of the complainant is to be believed, the certificate used by the non-appticont No.2 bearmg numbered 228 was of -the Court of hkiib Tahsildar, Pendra Road. If -this be trye, •then -the documents fited by -the complaffiant before the JJ^.F.C. on 6.1.2005 do not in any monner show whe'ther caste certificcrte r'egistered at no. 228 had been issued by •the Court of Naib Tohsildar, Pendra Road in favour of the appliaant herein or not smce the cert'ified copy of the revenue cose. register for •the year 2003-04 ^iows the aases registered from SI.No.204 to 214 only CMid not beyond that. It was the duty of -Hie complainant to requisition •the relevant documents from the tteturning Officer in •the election of the President of Nagar Panchayat, Saureh. Jhe photocopies of caste •h "~J:!i certificate filed by -the non-applicant No.2 before the J.M.F.C. along \ with complaint shows that it is the photocopy of an attested copy by the Notary. It by itsetf do not teod to any such inference that the caste certificates got issued by the applicmt herem were issued in cotlusion with the non-oppticcait No.3 herehi and wwrst bogus. The Revenue Case nurober prin'ted on •t+>e photocopies is also not clearly legibte. In this view of the nytter, •the teamed Judicial Magislrate ^ First Chss rightly concluded that •the complainant after havin9 been given sufficient opporhinity had failed to produce evidence to substantiate the alley»tionsin the complaintand no inference could be drawn on the bosis of the photocopies of an ottested copy by Ihe Notary, for proceeding against the accused-persons. Thus, Ae Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendro Road was wholly justified in dismissing the complamt under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 12. In the reailt, this revision deserves to be altowed. The impugned order dated 23.3.2006 passed by -the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, in criminal Revision 47/2006 is set aside wAtile maintaining -ftie order dated 9.1.2006 passed by -rtie J.M.P.C. Pendra Road. Sd-/ Judge 1 <<fi