It is “not legal and logical” to reject plea without giving any opportunity to a complainant to lead evidence, a Delhi court has observed while asking a magistrate to pass a reasoned order on a complaint against an IAS officer for allegedly using a false OBC certificate.
Special judge Anju Bajaj Chandna said observations given by metropolitan magistrate in the order dismissing the complaint against the bureaucrat and others were “premature” and the complainant should have been given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of his plea.
The court’s order came on a revision petition challenging the magisterial court’s last year order in which the plea seeking registration of FIR against the IAS officer and two others was dismissed.
Delhi-based complainant Mahesh Kumar had alleged in his plea that the IAS officer had got into civil services on the basis of “false, forged and fabricated non-creamy layer OBC certificate” and his father had given a false statement in an affidavit concealing his real income and position.
The magistrate had dismissed the plea on the ground that since the OBC certificate was issued after due verification, no prima facie case was made out.
The sessions court, in its order, held that the magistrate had rightly declined the prayer for registration of an FIR against the civil servant but the plea under section 200 of the CrPC (examination of complainant) should not have been dismissed without taking complainant evidence.
The court said, “It has been noted by metropolitan magistrate that no official document has been placed on record and OBC certificate has been duly verified but these observations are premature and metropolitan magistrate should have given opportunity to the complainant to lead pre- summoning evidence.”
“Without giving any opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence, it was not legal and logical on part of metropolitan magistrate to have dismissed the complaint,” it said.
It allowed the revision plea saying that, “complainant should be given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of his complaint. Only on consideration of the material brought on record by the complainant, the magistrate is to take decision by passing the reasoned order with respect to the complaint.
Special judge Anju Bajaj Chandna said observations given by metropolitan magistrate in the order dismissing the complaint against the bureaucrat and others were “premature” and the complainant should have been given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of his plea.
The court’s order came on a revision petition challenging the magisterial court’s last year order in which the plea seeking registration of FIR against the IAS officer and two others was dismissed.
Delhi-based complainant Mahesh Kumar had alleged in his plea that the IAS officer had got into civil services on the basis of “false, forged and fabricated non-creamy layer OBC certificate” and his father had given a false statement in an affidavit concealing his real income and position.
The magistrate had dismissed the plea on the ground that since the OBC certificate was issued after due verification, no prima facie case was made out.
The sessions court, in its order, held that the magistrate had rightly declined the prayer for registration of an FIR against the civil servant but the plea under section 200 of the CrPC (examination of complainant) should not have been dismissed without taking complainant evidence.
The court said, “It has been noted by metropolitan magistrate that no official document has been placed on record and OBC certificate has been duly verified but these observations are premature and metropolitan magistrate should have given opportunity to the complainant to lead pre- summoning evidence.”
“Without giving any opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence, it was not legal and logical on part of metropolitan magistrate to have dismissed the complaint,” it said.
It allowed the revision plea saying that, “complainant should be given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of his complaint. Only on consideration of the material brought on record by the complainant, the magistrate is to take decision by passing the reasoned order with respect to the complaint.
Comments
Post a Comment