Factory, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj) v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

Manisha Sonwal S/o Shri Navratan Sonwal, Navratan Sonwal S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Sonwal, both are R/o 4, Raigaro Ka Mohalla, Chaksu, District Jaipur Presently Residing At Murga Farm, Infront Of Shree Tower, In The Bungalow Of Shri Lallu Lal Sonwal (Nominated Councilor), Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR 21/05/2025 Order The petitioner has preferred this instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under section 528 of BNSS for quashing the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 and 06.03.2025, passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No. 19, Chaksu, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan-I while exercising the revisional power. [2025:RJ-JP:21442] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2290/2025] It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial court as well as revisional court dismissed the application of the petitioner on the surmise that only the concerned Court has power to take cognizance under the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the procedure encapsulated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is clear and unambiguous, empowering any person to submit an application, if any offence as mentioned in Section 195(1) of the Cr.P.C. appears to have been committed in relation to proceedings of the court. Both the courts below ignored the legal position and presuming that under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. only the concerned Court is competent to file the complaint, dismissed the petitioner’s application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 and 06.03.2025 may be quashed and set aside. Heard and perused the material available on the record. Section 340 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,--- (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such [2025:RJ-JP:21442] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2290/2025] former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; 1[(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.] (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.” The petitioner in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act submitted an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging the fact that respondent No. 2 has submitted a forged document regarding petitioner’s gross salary. The learned trial court vide order dated 22.09.2023 dismissed the application on the ground that under Section 195 Cr.P.C. only the concerned Court is competent to file any complaint. The said order was affirmed by the revisional court vide order dated 06.03.2025. The provisions mentioned under Section of 340 Cr.P.C, is explicit and clear that upon any application made to the Court or otherwise if it appears that inquiry should be made into any offence referred under clause (b) of sub Section (1) of section 195 of Cr.P.C., then the court may have discretion in respect of the documents produced or given in the evidence to conduct inquiry and if the court finds some sufficient reasons that some offence has been committed then the Court may submit an application as per Clause 340(3) of the Cr.P.C., Nowhere under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that for conducting an enquiry the concerned Court is precluded. Both the courts below without going into provisions, enshrined under Section 340 Cr.P.C., inferred that only the concerned Court is competent to file complaint under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. The provision of conducting [2025:RJ-JP:21442] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2290/2025] enquiry is entirely different and specific then from filing a complaint as per the provision of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. The provision of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. operates only when after holding enquiry the court finds that some offences appeared to have been committed, then only the private person is precluded to file a complaint directly. Therefore, in light of the above provisons the order passed by both the courts below i.e. order dated 22.09.2023 and 06.03.2025 are quashed and the matter is remanded to the trial court to rehear the parties as per the provisions contained under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. All pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ashu /41 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J