Bhanwar Lal vs State and Another

H.R. Panwar, J.—By the instant criminal misc. petition u/s 482 CrPC the order dt. 09.02.2004 passed by judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dungargarh, Bikaner (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter) has been challenged by the petitioner whereby the trial Court took the cognizance of the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against the petitioner and issued process.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was filed by complainant Devanand against two persons namely Devki Nandan and Shiv Shanker before the trial Court. The trial Court sent the complaint to the SHO of the concerned Police Station for investigation u/s 156(3) CrPC. After thorough investigation, the police submitted final report. On a protest petition, the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence not only against Devki Nandan and Shiv Shanker but also against the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is Typist in the Court premises and while functioning as Typist, he typed a document at the instance of Devki Nandan and Shiv Shanker. Whatever they dictated, he typed on the paper and nothing more. He has not played any role except typing on document which may be forged but at any rate the petitioner has not contributed anything in forgoing of document or using it as genuine. On careful perusal of the material available on record, in my view, there is absolutely no evidence connecting the petitioner with regard to the forging of document. In the circumstances, therefore, the order impugned taking cognizance against the petitioner is bad in law.

Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dt. 09.02.2004 taking cognizance against the petitioner is set aside. However, so far as cognizance against two other accused persons is concerned, that has neither been challenged nor has been disturbed. Stay petition stands disposed of.