Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2012
M.Cr.C. No.13119/2010
12.1.2012
Shri A. D. Mishra, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Himanshu Mishra, counsel for the
respondent.
Heard on admission.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties
matter is heard finally.
Facts of the case are that the respondent has filed
a criminal complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the applicant before CJM Satna. Thereafter, matter was transferred to JMFC concerned. Learned JMFC vide order dated 18.10.2007 found that Satna Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and therefore, it was directed that complainant is free to file the complaint before the appropriate Court. Thereafter, respondent has moved a revision 284/2007 before Sessions Judge, Satna. On 8.9.2008, revision was dismissed being withdrawn by learned First Additional Sessions Judge. Thereafter, an application was moved before CJM, Satna and vide order 9.12.2009 passed in MJC No.353/2009 it was directed that matter may be heard by JMFC concerned and parties were directed to appear before the concerned JMFC on 17.12.2009.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once an order is passed by JMFC concerned that he does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and its revision was withdrawn then that order became final and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has no power to interfere in that order by an application, after two years of that order. Under such circumstances order dated 9.12.2009 passed by learned CJM is of no jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the order may be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent invited the attention of this Court to the provisions under Section 410 of Cr.P.C that Chief Judicial Magistrate, was entitled to withdraw the case from concerned Judicial Magistrate and to transfer it to any other Magistrate. Under such circumstances, order passed by learned CJM is correct and no interference is required under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the various orders, it appears that vide order dated 9.12.2009 learned CJM, Satna did not transfer the case from the Court of Shri Pandey, JMFC but, he nullified the order dated 18.10.2007 and again directed that the case be tried by same Magistrate therefore, the impugned order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate was not passed under Section 410 of the Cr.P.C. However, it is to be made clear that vide order dated 18.10.2007, the case was finally disposed of from the concerned Court of JMFC and therefore, there was no power to Chief Judicial Magistrate Satna to entertain the matter under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. Provisions of Section 410 Cr.P.C are applicable to the pending case and not to the disposed of cases. It appears that learned JMFC did not dismiss the complaint vide order dated 18.10.2007 so that respondent may take advantage of the limitation. The respondent could take the complaint from the Court of JMFC Satna to file it before the competent Court and therefore one opportunity was provided by learned JMFC Satna, so that the respondent could apply before the competent Court for condonation of delay in filing the complaint but, the respondent did not take such an advantage given by the trial Court. However, it was held by the trial Court that trial Court has no jurisdiction and therefore, respondent was required to take the complaint back and to file it before the competent Court, who had the jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint was pending before the JMFC Satna. It is a disposed off case.
Order dated 18.10.2007 passed by JMFC Satna has attained finality because revision filed against that order was withdrawn. It is principle of law that criminal Court has no right to review its own order and therefore, CJM had no authority to pass any order in that case. It appears that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna has passed the impugned order to facilitate the respondent unnecessarily. No power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is avaialble to Chief Judicial Magistrate Satna., Under such circumstances, the order dated 9.12.2009 cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and order dated 9.12.2009 passed by CJM Satna is hereby quashed.
Looking to the conduct of CJM Satna, Shri R. G. Singh, it appears that there was some ulterior motive behind this order and therefore, copy of the order of this Court be sent to the Registrar General to take disciplinary action against CJM Satna on administrative side.
C.C as per rules.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina