Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. So, on plain perusal of a petition of complaint it appears that the allegation of the complaint against the present petitioner before the Learned magistrate is offence of perjury.

9. Petitioner filed this criminal revision for quashing mainly on two grounds;

Firstly, the order of taking cognizance by the Magistrate on the basis of the petition of complaint is a complete bar u/s 195 (1) (a) (i) and Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Cr.P.C.

Secondly- present proceeding is bar under the principle of res judicata, as the present opposite party earlier initiated an application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. before the Municipal Building Tribunal and the order of such Learned Municipal Building Tribunal has attained finality on 7th December, 2011.

f) In the circumstances, cognizance of the complaint in question could not have been taken by virtue of the bar under Sections 195(1) (a) and 195 (1) (b) of the code of criminal procedure. This is so irrespective of whether the Learned MBT or the Hon'ble High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Opposite Party's Section 340 application.
g) The opposite party had itself filed a Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure perjury petition alleging same offences and facts before the Learned MBT [page 37, para 24 of the impugned petition of complaint.]. This application was dismissed "on contest" by the Learned MBT's order dated December 7,2011 [Internal page No. 17 of the order dated December 7,2011, passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal]. This order has two aspects, one dealing with the appeal filed by the opposite party from the order of the Learned Special Officer (Building) dated December 12,2005. The other part of the said order dated December 7, 2011 deals with the opposite party's petition under Section 340 application under the Code of Criminal procedure. From the former i.e. disposal of the BT appeal, the opposite party by way of a challenge filed an Article 227 petition being CO No. 174 of 2012. However, from the latter part of the order dated December 7, 2011 dismissing the Section 340 application, there was no challenge by way of an appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or for that matter criminal revision of the like.

Thus, the rejection of the Section 340 Cr.P.C. petition by the Learned MBT by the said order dated December 7, 2011 had attained finality.

8

h) The order of December 7, 2011 since unchallenged is binding on both sides and the opposite party is stopped from arguing before the court that the Learned MBT had no jurisdiction to entertain the Section 340 application.

The reliance on Mohammad Ali v. WB, reported in (2012) 3 CHN 110 by the petitioner is a misplaced one as in the present case it was nowhere held by the learned Tribunal that the offences as contended by the respondent were not disclosed. The application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent was not entertained by the learned Tribunal as the said learned Tribunal was not a court within the meaning of Section 195(3) of the Cr.P.C. in view of its incapacity, the said application was not entertained by the learned Tribunal which would be evident from the Order itself as extracted hereinabove.