Om Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Om Prakash and ors. vs State of Rajasthan and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 11, 1999

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/764487

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/764487
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: G.L. Gupta, J.
Decided On: Feb 11, 1999
Case Number: Criminal M. Petn. No. 358 of 1998
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 460--Penal Code, 1860--Section 420, 406 and 120-B--The accused caused the complainant to believe that he was unmarried and married the daughter of their family--The secret was soon out--Private complaint was filed in the court which had no jurisdiction to try the case but it r...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 120B, 190, 201, 406, 420 and 460

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Om Prakash and ors.

Advocate R.K. Soni, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and ors.

Advocate Rajesh Joshi, Adv.; A.K. Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 120B, 190, 201, 406, 420 and 460
Cases Referred: (Vaidya Madanlal v. Om Prakash).
Reported In: 1999CriLJ2935; 1999(1)WLN108

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 460--penal code, 1860--section 420, 406 and 120-b--the accused caused the complainant to believe that he was unmarried and married the daughter of their family--the secret was soon out--private complaint was filed in the court which had no jurisdiction to try the case but it recorded the enquiry evidence--the case travelled in some courts and finally reached the proper court--this court took cognizance on the already recorded evidence and issued process--this is irregular and it is in the initial stage so section 460 cr.p.c. cannot be pressed in service--impugned order quashed and magistrate to start afresh.;order accordingly - - when this court had held that the judicial magistrate, deedwana had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and further directed the return of the complaint for presentation in the proper court, it clearly means that the entire proceedings taken by the judicial magistrate, deedwana were held to be without jurisdiction. can be made applicable after the case makes some headway and it is found that the magistrate erroneously in good faith did the thing for which he was not empowered......at the most there was irregularity which according to him does not vitiate the proceedings. relying on section 460(e) cr.p.c., he urges that if any magistrate not empowered by law to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 190 takes cognizance, the proceedings are not vitiated.5. there is merit in the contention of mr. soni. when this court had held that the judicial magistrate, deedwana had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and further directed the return of the complaint for presentation in the proper court, it clearly means that the entire proceedings taken by the judicial magistrate, deedwana were held to be without jurisdiction. it is true that the order of taking cognizance was not set aside by this court in express terms but that does not matter. as tills court held that the judicial magistrate, deedwana had no jurisdiction and directed the returning of the complaint to the complainant it tantamounted to setting aside of the order of taking cognizance by the judicial magistrate, deedwana.6. it is difficult to accept the contention of mr. joshi that the proceedings taken by the judicial magistrate, deedwana are protected under) section 460 (e), cr.p.c. the case is at the initial stage. the provisions of section 460, cr.p.c. can be made applicable after the case makes some headway and it is found that the magistrate erroneously in good faith did the thing for which he was not empowered. section 460, cr.p.c. is enabling provision which cannot be pressed into service at the initial stage of the case. the learned judicial magistrate has erred when on the basis of section 302(e), cr.p.c. he held that the cognizance stood regularised. after the order of this court dt. 12-8-92 the evidence recorded or any orderpassed by the judicial magistrate, deedwana ceased to have any legal effect. that being so, the learned judicial magistrate, ladnu has committed error in rejecting the objection taken by the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

G.L. Gupta, J.

1. This misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 22-3-94 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu in Cr. Case No. 35/92 (Vaidya Madanlal v. Om Prakash).

2. The case has chequered history. It is the third time that this matter has come to this Court, though it is yet at the initial stage.

Vaidya Mandanlal filed criminal complaint against Om prakash and others (petitioners) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana under Sections 406, 420 and 120B, IPC on 28-3-87. The allegations were that Om Prakash was already married yet he caused the complainants to believe that he was unmarried and therefore Shyama was married to him. The Judicial Magistrate after holding enquiry issued process against the petitioners vide order dt. 18-5-87.

That order was challenged in this Court by way of misc. petition. The contention of the petitioner was that the Judicial Magistrate of Deedwana had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. This Court vide order dt. 19-11-91 directed the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana to first decide the question of jurisdiction within a period of eight months. Thereafter the learned Magistrate vide order dt. 6-7-92 held that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. He at the same time sent the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for forwarding the same to the Court having jurisdiction.

That order was challenged by preferring Misc. Petition No. 313/92 which was decided by this Court on 12-8-92. This Court held that the order of Magistrate sending the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for onward transmission to the competent Court was not according to law. This Court directed the Magistrate to return the complaint to the complainant under Section 201, Cr.P.C. to be presented before the proper Court having jurisdiction.

Thereupon the complaint was returned to the complainant who filed the same in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu on 22-10-92. The Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu summoned the petitioners in the case on the basis of the earlier proceedings held in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. On appearance, the accused petitioners filed an application that the cognizance could not be taken against them without recording evidence by the Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu and the cognizance should be set aside. This application was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dt. 22-3-94. It is this order which has been called in question in this misc. petition.

3. Mr. Soni, vehemently contended that once this Court had held that the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter the proceedings taken in that Court were without jurisdiction and no cognizance could be taken on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. Joshi, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners were summoned by the Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu on the evidence recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, and therefore, at the most there was irregularity which according to him does not vitiate the proceedings. Relying on Section 460(e) Cr.P.C., he urges that if any Magistrate not empowered by law to take cognizance of an offence under Clause (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of Section 190 takes cognizance, the proceedings are not vitiated.

5. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Soni. When this Court had held that the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and further directed the return of the complaint for presentation in the proper Court, it clearly means that the entire proceedings taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana were held to be without jurisdiction. It is true that the order of taking cognizance was not set aside by this Court in express terms but that does not matter. As tills Court held that the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana had no jurisdiction and directed the returning of the complaint to the complainant it tantamounted to setting aside of the order of taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana.

6. It is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Joshi that the proceedings taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana are protected under) Section 460 (e), Cr.P.C. The case is at the initial stage. The provisions of Section 460, Cr.P.C. can be made applicable after the case makes some headway and it is found that the Magistrate erroneously in good faith did the thing for which he was not empowered. Section 460, Cr.P.C. is enabling provision which cannot be pressed into service at the initial stage of the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate has erred when on the basis of Section 302(e), Cr.P.C. he held that the cognizance stood regularised. After the order of this Court dt. 12-8-92 the evidence recorded or any orderpassed by the Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana ceased to have any legal effect. That being so, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu has committed error in rejecting the objection taken by the petitioners.

7. Consequently, the impugned order dt. 22-3-94 is set aside. The Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1999 Same Parties Om Prakash and ors. vs State of Rajasthan and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge G.L. Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 120B, 190...

Criminal