UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
SINGLE BENCH
( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. )
PURAN CHANDRA MELKANI — Appellant
Vs.
GOPAL SINGH — Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 808 of 2015
Decided on : 08-07-2015
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 200, Section 202, Section 482
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 420, Section 463, Section 464, Section 468, Section 469, Section 471, Section 499, Section 504, Section 506
JUDGMENT
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are sought to be invoked in the present application. Brief facts of the case are that the present applicant moved a complaint on 15.04.2014 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora under Section 463/464/468/469/471/420/499/504 and 506 of I.P.C., which was registered as Criminal Case No. 190 of 2014. It has been alleged in the complaint that the present applicant is a registered contractor in the Medical Department and the respondent is presently posted as Accountant on contract basis in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Almora. He (respondent) had impersonated himself and sought information under the Right to Information Act relating to the petitioner. When the present applicant asked him about the forged signature of another person in order to seek information, the respondent threatened the petitioner. Therefore, the present applicant filed a complaint before the court concerned. The learned Magistrate in accordance with Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. after due enquiry rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 08.10.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the learned Session Judge, Almora, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2015. Hence the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court.
2. From the perusal of the impugned order of the revisional court it appears that the revisional court again looked into the entire aspect of the case and come to the conclusion that prima facie no case is made out in the complaint of the petitioner. The revisionist has no authority to send notice to a person who seeks information under Right to Information Act. The details of the incident alleged to have in the office of respondent, which has not been elaborated in the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant. In short, after giving full consideration to the entire aspect of the matter, the revisional court too has come to the conclusion that no offence is made out of forgery and affirmed the order of the court below. This Court finds no reason to take a different view in the matter other than what has been taken by the courts below. The application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in-limine.
(2015) 2 NCC 821
