Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that application has been dismissed as per law because an appeal is provided under Section 341 Cr.P.C. only to challenge the order of filing the complaint or making enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. When the complaint is filed and the Court has taken the cognizance of the matter by framing the charge or by discharging the party under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C., then only a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. will lie and not the appeal under the provisions of Section 341 Cr.P.C.

An appeal has been provided under Section 341 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

"341. Appeal.

(1) Any person on whose application any court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under sub-

VINEET GULATI section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such court, may appeal to the court to which such former court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of' section 95, and the superior court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint or, as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former court might have made under section 340, and if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly.

As per Annexure P-1, Chander Prakash Malhotra through his General Power of Attorney-complainant filed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against R.B.S. Chahal and Sukhraj Kaur Chahal for prosecution of the accused. As per order dated 10.05.2001 (Annexure P-1), learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh gave finding that there appears sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents under Section 209 IPC for dishonestly making false claim in the Court. Accordingly, accused R.B.S.Chahal was ordered to be summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 209 and 193 IPC for 28.07.2001 on process fee and copy of complaint. Chander Prakash Malhotra filed the appeal against R.B.S.Chahal and Sukhraj Kaur challenging the order dated 10.05.2001 to the extent vide which Sukhraj Kaur was not summoned. That appeal was under Section 341 Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, R.B.S.Chahal filed an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. against Chander Prakash Malhotra challenging the order, vide which the learned lower Court, on the basis of enquiry held by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh on 10.05.2001, filed the criminal complaint under Sections 209 and 193 IPC against the appellant (R.B.S.Chahal). This appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2004 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (Annexure P-3). Then vide order dated 12.10.2006, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh discharged the accused R.B.S.Chahal by holding that no such case is made out against the accused which can warrant framing of charge against him. When this order was passed, presence was marked as R.B.S. Chahal accused in person and Sh.R.S.Pathania, Advocate for the complainant Chander Prakash. Then a revision was filed by Chander Prakash Malhotra by showing Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh as petitioner No.1 and himself as petitioner No.2 against R.B.S.Chahal accused under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.10.2006. In this proceeding, present petitioner filed application for dismissing the revision in limine by stating that only appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. specifically lays down grounds for filing the same. The lower Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner by holding that Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not indicate that the person on whose application the complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been filed, cannot file the revision petition challenging any order passed in the complaint. Otherwise also, the procedure has been mentioned in Section 343 Cr.P.C., which states that the Magistrate to whom a complaint is made under Section 340 or Section 341 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV proceed, as far as may be, to deal with the case as if it were instituted on a police report. The Court on filing of the complaint and after hearing the parties, found that no charge is made out against the present petitioner R.B.S.Chahal and therefore discharged the petitioner. As per Section 238 Cr.P.C., firstly compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. is to be made by supplying the copies and after that if the Court after considering the report and documents etc. and is of the view that framing of charge against the accused is groundless, shall discharge the accused, and record the reasons for doing so. So, in the present case, when the present petitioner has been discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in the complaint, therefore, revision petition is maintainable and it cannot be dismissed in limine being not maintainable.

Petitioner has cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rugmini Ammal (Dead by L.Rs) vs. Narayana Reddiar and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 895. I have gone through this cited judgment and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case. Petitioner has further cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalit Mohan Mondal and others vs. Benoyendra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1982 SC 785, in which it is held that the against an order passed in appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C., the order would not be revisable by the High Court under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. but there can be no doubt that the Court is entitled to examine the matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which expressely overrules the bar contained in Section 341 of the Code. This citation is also of no benefit to the present petitioner.