Sunderlal Chaturvedi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

G.S. Solanki, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. Applicant has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by order dated 17.07.2013, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur by which Crime No. 321/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 205, 467, 419 and 420 of the I.P.C. has been registered against this applicant Suderlal Chaturvedi and other co-accused persons.

Facts in short giving rise to this petition are that Khiladi alias Ramkhilawan, S/o Sunwa Prajapati, Chunnilal alias Sanjeev son of Baldeo Basore and Ashok Garg son of Biharilal Garg were prosecuted in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 339 and 402 of the I.P.C. and also u/s 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The investigating agency after completing necessary investigation and all other formalities filed challan/chargesheet before the competent court of jurisdiction against the aforesaid accused persons, which in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions and now the matter is pending for adjudication before the Court of Sessions vide Sessions Trial No. 300/12. Accused persons namely, Khiladi alias Ramkhilawan and Ashok Garg have been directed to be released on bail on furnishing two sureties. One person, namely Baldu Pal, son of Ramnath Gadariya, aged about 38 years, R/o Bachhoun, District Chhatarpur, stood as a surety for accused Khiladi @ Ramkhilawan, Chunnilal @ Sajeev and Asho, Garg, all residents of District Panna. Against these accused persons, S.T. No. 300/12 (State of M.P. Vs. Khiladi @ Ramkhilawan and others) is pending for adjudication in the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur.

The bail was furnished in the Court of Shri Pradeep Dubey, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur. Accused Khiladi @ Ramkhilawan jumped bail and he is absconding, owning to which notices were issued to surety Baldoo Pal on 17.07.2013. Surety Baldoo Pal appeared before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge where his statement was recorded. Statement of Baldoo Pal so recorded on that date, bail papers furnished thereto before Judicial Magistrate First Class on 22.06.20102, were perused by the First Additional Sessions Judge. It was revealed that someone, who stood as surety impersonated himself as Baldoo Pal and his passport size photograph is also affixed therein in the affidavit, who was identified by the present petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer.

When aforesaid Baldu Pal appeared before the First Additional Sessions Judge, after enquiry, he directed the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur to lodge the FIR against all concerned persons who have prepared the forged document and filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class pertaining to the impersonation of another person in place of Baldu Pal. In pursuance of aforesaid order, Judicial Magistrate First Class lodged the FIR in Police Station, Kotwali, Chhatarpur, where the aforesaid Crime No. 321/2013 has been registered against this applicant and other co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that applicant is a practising Lawyer of Chhatarpur. He made the identification from the affidavit in the bonafide belief that the person shown in the affidavit was Baldu Pal and the same was identified by other co-accused persons. He further submitted that applicant has neither impersonated nor committed any forgery. At the most, the alleged offence may come u/s 120 of the I.P.C. for which nothing has been collected by the prosecution during the investigation that this applicant was previously known to the persons, who said to have impersonated Baldu Pol before Judicial Magistrate First Class. In these circumstances, if he made any identification on the basis of other co-accused persons, that cannot be said that applicant has involved in conspiracy with other co-accused persons. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Hiralal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration, .

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition.

I have perused the case diary, wherein nothing has been collected against this applicant that he was previously known to the person who impersonated himself as Baldu Pal before Judicial Magistrate First Class. In these circumstances, if applicant has identified the aforesaid person on the basis of identification of other accused persons, he acted in bonafide belief and the same cannot be come under conspiracy with other co-accused. Certainly, he has neither impersonated nor committed any forgery before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Applicant is a practising Lawyer and if the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and consequent there to registration of crime No. 321/2013 be remain continued against this applicant, the same would be abuse of process of court, therefore, same is liable to be quashed.

This petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, pertaining to applicant and consequently Crime No. 321/2013 registered against him stands quashed. C.C. as per rules.