Raju @ Rajan and Another. vs State of Madhya Pradesh.

Hon. Shri N.K. Gupta, J.—This order shall govern the disposal of above mentioned three petitions, as common question of fact and law are involved in these petitions.

Cr.R. No. 3/2005 has been preferred by the applicants Raj @ Jai Kumar @ Arjundas, Chhanga @ Chhangumal Sindhi, Dayaldas and Permanand being aggrieved with the order dated 4.10.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol in Criminal Case No. 1237/1991 by which charges are framed against them for commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. M.Cr.C. No. 8508/2005 and M.Cr.C. No. 1270/ 2006 have been preferred by remaining applicants challenging the order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Criminal Revision No. 272/2004 by which the criminal revision was dismissed which was filed against the order dated 4.10.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol. Also it is prayed that proceedings pending before the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 1237/1991 may be quashed.

The facts of the case in a nutshell are that Lallu Singh, former Vice President of Nehru Grih Nirman Samiti, Shahdol (hereinafter referred to as "society") had submitted a written complaint in November 1990 to the police that he was elected Vice President of that society from 10.10.1979 upto 10.10.1982. Prior to the tenure of Lallu Singh, Permanand Raj was the Vice President and Jai Kumar was the Secretary of that society. In the month of October 1979, election of Directors was to be held, and therefore voters list was modified and prepared. Voters list was duly published and no objection was received to the voters list. After the elections, concerned register was not handed over to neither Treasurer Arjundas nor to Vice President Lallu Singh. On 31.1.1980 a general meeting of members was called in which it was directed that entire account will be submitted within 15 days, but upto 10.10.1982 Jai Kumar and Permanand Raj did not give any account to the elected authorities. After October 1982 the society was liquidated and Jai Kumar and Permanand Raj prepared a forged account with the help of other co-accused persons. The other co-accused persons were shown to be members whereas their names were never taken on the voters list. They were not accepted as members in the society. The accused persons had prepared the various resolutions of 16.1.1979, 6.5.1981, 9.5.1981 and 16.5.1982, whereas those accused persons were never permitted to be appointed as members and no modification in the voters list was done, and therefore they did not have any right to vote. The accused persons were using that register in various judicial proceedings. Some seized record was given to Lallu Singh, whereas some registers were deposited in the office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Shahdol.

On the complaint made by Lallu Singh, no action was taken for a long period. Thereafter DSP Shahdol enquired into the matter and submitted a report that forgery was done. After due investigation, a challan was filed against various applicants. Some of the applicants had filed an application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 670/1992 in which vide order dated 2.4.1992 stay to the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1237/1991 was granted by this Court. However, on 29.11.1996 the said petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Again a restoration application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed by some of the accused persons, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 2420/ 1997, but again that application was also dismissed on 28.11.1997 for want of prosecution. Trial could not proceed in the case, because some of the accused persons were absconding at that time and some of them obtained stay from this Court. Ultimately, vide order dated 4.10.2004 the trial Court could frame the charges against the accused persons. Applicants Raj @ Jai Kumar @ Arjundas, Chhanga @ Chhangumal Sindhi, Dayaldas and Permanand preferred a revision petition against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol before this Court whereas remaining applicants had moved three different revisions before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol, but all the three revisions were dismissed vide order dated 8.9.2005 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the matter was initiated because of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Shahdol. The applicants had moved an appeal against that order and that order was set aside. It is yet to be decided whether Lallu Singh was a member of that society or not. Also in those resolutions in which it is mentioned that various accused persons were made members of the society, Lallu Singh himself signed those resolutions. No bye-laws were filed before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, and therefore the Appellate Court remanded the matter for its lawful disposal. At present register relating to membership is not at all produced before the Court. Learned counsel for the applicants have also invited attention of this Court to the Annexure P-3 at page No. 63 to show that Lallu Singh himself purchased the land from the society on 26.12.1981 and the land was sold by applicant Jai Kumar on behalf of the society. Similarly, Jai Kumar had also purchased some land of the society on 26.12.1981 and sale deed is shown at page No. 66. Similarly, some more sale deeds are submitted to show that the persons who were made members have purchased the land from the society, and therefore they automatically became the members. The order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies is still subjudice, and therefore it cannot be said that any forgery or cheating has been done by the applicants. It is also submitted that the applicants of M.Cr.C. No. 1270/2006 and M.Cr.C. No. 8508/2005 did not sign the proceedings in proceeding register and the matter relating to their membership is subjudice. Under such circumstances, no appeal for cheating or forgery can be prosecuted against the applicants.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent-State has supported the impugned orders. He submits that all the applications relating to proceeding shall be decided by the evidence before the trial Court and such evidence cannot be considered at present.

On consideration of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that some of the applicants had filed a petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court and thereafter that petition was abandoned, even the restoration petition was filed and thereafter it was also abandoned. Therefore, the applicants have created an estoppel against themselves by their own conduct and they were not interested to prosecute the petition for quashing the proceedings before the trial Court. It is also strange that the order relating to framing of charges passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol was challenged by some of the accused persons before the Sessions Court and some of the accused persons came directly before this Court. If a revision is maintainable against any order, then applicant cannot choose the forum. He has to move the lowest revisionary Court. The application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. filed against the order by the revisioner/applicants amounts to a second revision in the garb of application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that since previous application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. was not decided on merits and charges were framed by the trial Court, therefore a new cause of action arose with the applicants to quash the proceeding by filing application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. However, it would be clear that applicants Raj @ Jai Kumar @ Arjundas, Chhanga @ Chhangumal Sindhi, Dayaldas and Permanand did not file any application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. They preferred a revision against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol, and therefore no additional documents can be seen in that matter.

If the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol is considered, then it is apparent that the voters list was prepared and objections were called, but no objection was shown by anyone of them. Thereafter, in the election Lallu Singh was elected. The applicants have challenged the membership of Lallu Singh, but on the other hand they have alleged that on various proceedings Lallu Singh has also signed on the resolution register, and therefore he cannot challenge it. It is also apparent that Lallu Singh was permitted to sign on the resolution register, and therefore at that time, his membership was not challenged, and therefore election relating to Lallu Singh was valid prima facie.

The applicants have raised the contentions that the various members, who were joined as members got the land in their name by a sale deed, and therefore they became members of the society. But it is apparent from the procedure adopted by the society that there is no automatic procedure by which a person who purchases land from the society becomes a member in the society and he can vote in the meeting. Therefore, it was necessary for various office bearers and members to modify the voters list from time to time and thereafter the members could cast their votes in general meeting of the members.

Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the register relating to those resolutions is not produced and that register is not available. However, looking to the report prepared by the DSP Shahdol, it is apparent that register was submitted to the Court of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and its photocopy was submitted to the police, and therefore that document is available on record. It is also clear from beginning that tenure of Jai Kumar and Permanand Raj was over in the year 1979, and therefore they could not prepare any resolution thereafter. If such resolutions are prepared, then certainly they were prima facie forged documents.

If various accused persons were not accepted as voters in the voters list, then they were not competent to sign the resolution register. Under such circumstances, looking to the various documents submitted by the prosecution before the magisterial Court, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly framed the charges against the various accused persons, and therefore it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was illegal or without any jurisdiction. The entire evidence is to be seen at the time of framing of charges. If it is visible that entire evidence is considered as such, then a conviction may be directed, in such a case charges shall be framed. At present statements given by various members and office bearers of the society cannot be brushed aside, and therefore it cannot be said that no case is made out against the applicants. In such circumstances, the Criminal Revision No. 3/2005 filed by applicants Raj @ Jai Kumar @ Arjundas, Chhanga @ Chhangumal Sindhi, Dayaldas and Permanand deserves to be dismissed.

As far as M.Cr.C. No. 1270/2006 and M.Cr.C. No. 8508/2005 filed by remaining applicants are concerned, firstly it is a second revision in the garb of application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. In those applications, no additional document is submitted for consideration before this Court, and therefore it appears that their applications u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is based upon the document of the prosecution only. According to the document filed by the prosecution, it is already observed that charges framed by the trial Court appear to be correct, and therefore under the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. there is no basis by which any interference by this Court is made out.

Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the prosecution initiated on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar was quashed, and therefore prosecution is not maintainable. But such contention cannot be accepted. At the time of framing of charges, the assessment as to what sort of document is filed and what sort of document is not available cannot be done. It is to be seen that by the document filed by the prosecution whether any charge is made out or not. Similarly, after passing the order by the Assistant Registrar, an investigation was directed by the police and on the basis of that investigation, a challn was filed, and therefore challan is dependent upon the investigation done by the police. Therefore, if the order passed by the Assistant Registrar is quashed, then it makes no difference on the prosecution of that challan.

Under such circumstances, where the challan was filed in the year 1992 and the case is prolonged by the applicants by various methods, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could frame the charges in the year 2005, and thereafter record of the trial Court was called for and it is here with the present applications. It is highly dissatisfactory that challan was filed in the year 1992 and nothing could be done after 20 years. All the objections raised by the applicants can be decided after examination of entire evidence produced by the prosecution, and therefore it would be in the interest of justice to permit the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol to proceed with the case and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. No ground is established by the applicants so that their applications u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. may be accepted. Similarly, there is no additional document on record filed in the application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., and therefore there is no ground by which inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. may be invoked. For the foregoing reasons, no interference can be made either in the proceeding or in the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol. Consequently, M.Cr.C. No. 8508/ 2005, M.Cr.C. No. 1270/2006 and Criminal Revision No. 3/2005 are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned with its record forthwith so that prosecution may proceed at the earliest.