S.K. Palo, J.@mdashHeard on the question of admission and disposed at motion stage.
2. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petition is as under:
A complaint was filed by the petitioner Saurabh Goyal against the respondents under Section 120-(A), 166, 167, 197, 198, 415, 463, 464, 468 and 477(A) of IPC on the background that the civil litigation was going on between the petitioners and respondents, in which certain documents have been filed by the petitioners between 8.8.2010 to 4.12.2010, without referring to those documents appeal was decided on 6.12.2010. As per the petitioner the documents were deliberately misplaced by the clerical staff. Therefore, the Presiding Officer could not peruse those documents. Hence, it is alleged that order was passed against the petitioner. The non-petitioners / accused persons with the connivance of clerical staff misplaced those documents.
3. In this un-registered complaint 0/2014 (Saurabh Goyal Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain and others), the learned JMFC, Gwalior after conducting the preliminary inquiry passed order dated 30.6.2014 and refused to take cognizance of any offence with the finding that no case is made out, on the basis of the averments and preliminary evidence.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed, Criminal Appeal No. 0/2014 (Saurabh Goyal Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain and others), in which the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior passed the impugned order on 13.8.2014. Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 341 Cr.P.C by the complainant /petitioner was dismissed. The learned ASJ held that the criminal appeal is misconceived and not tenable. On analyzing the provisions of Section 340 and 341 of Cr.P.C, the Court opined that the appeal is not maintainable.
5. The petitioner / complainant / appellant has filed this revision challenging the impugned order dated 13.8.2014, contended that in the complaint dated 25.3.2011 no question was raised regarding its maintainability. The complaint was maintainable under Section 340(3)(B) of Cr.P.C. The findings were given contrary to the provisions of Section 340 , 341 of Cr.P.C. The documents were filed by the petitioners were removed from the file and the respondents have forged the documents in the civil case. Therefore, petitioner has requested to set aside the order in question of the Court below and to pass appropriate order.
6. Chapter 26 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 provides provision as to offence affecting the administration of justice.
7. In this Chapter provision regarding procedure to be adopted in cases mentioned in Section 195 has been provided. Section 195 of Cr.P.C provides that, Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offence against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
8. It is to be remembered that for proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C for commission of any offence against public justice, the Court in which the offence has been committed is required to file a complaint suo motu or on the basis of the application of any of the party. Therefore, un-registered complaint initiated by the complainant / petitioner before the JMFC is misconceived.
9. The learned revisional Court made it clear that the application ought to have been filed before the Court in which the said offence alleged to have been committed, but the petitioner choosed to file the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior. Therefore, the order under challenged is proper and do not warrant any interference.
10. In the opinion of this Court also as the complaint is procedurally wrong and is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The learned Courts below have not erred while passing the orders in question.
11. As the impugned order dated 13.8.2014 does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or perversity, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.
