1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1816/2007 Kanhaiya & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order: 31.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Shankarlal Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. ----- By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the orders dated 6th March, 2003 and 14th May, 2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Bharatpur and Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bharatpur, respectively. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 3. It is noticed that Additional Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Bharatpur while adjudicating the application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC found that the petitioners forged a document relating to permission of construction granted by Gram Panchayat, Ghushyari. The Civil Court found that such permission to raise construction was never issued by Gram Panchayat, Ghushyari and the petitioner on the basis of that forged 2 permission, wanted to raise construction showing their old possession on the land in dispute. Hence, learned Civil Court ordered to conduct an inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and filed a complaint in the court of Magistrate having jurisdiction. Learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Bharatpur after conducting an inquiry found that the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC were prima facie made out and there were sufficient grounds on record to proceed against the accused petitioners namely Kanhaiya, Durjar and Mool Chand. Aggrieved with this order, petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bharatpur vide its judgment dated 14th May, 2007. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the Magistrate did not conduct the inquiry in accordance with the procedure as laid down in the Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that a Magistrate shall make a complaint in writing and send it to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction for trial but the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Bharatpur is not found to have followed the procedure in letter and spirit. Hence, the order of Magistrate deserves to be set aside. Similarly, the Appellate Court also did not 3 decide the matter in its right perspective and in routine confirmed the order of the Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Bharatpur. 5. E converso, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that the order dated 6th March, 2003 is related only to conducting an inquiry. Having conducted the inquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate found that there was ample evidence on record which constitute offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC and there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. The next stage for the Judicial Magistrate was to make a complaint in writing and sent the same to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction for trial. Before reaching at that stage, the petitioners challenged the order dated 6th March, 2003 and filed an appeal which also stood dismissed. The orders of the courts below are perfectly just and in consonance with the provisions of law. Learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Bharatpur rightly adopted the procedure while conducting an inquiry as laid down under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and the order does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality 4 and infirmity therein. Learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1 Bharatpur is found to have followed the procedure of conducting the inquiry as laid down under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. He did not commit any error in his approach. The action of the petitioners of filing appeal against the order dated 6th March, 2003 was pre-mature. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are also not found to be tenable. 7. In view of above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 35