Bhagwan Das vs Chhotelal and Others

G.S. Solanki, J.—With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The applicant has filed this petition u/s 482 of the code of criminal procedure invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by order dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli in criminal revision No. 50/2012 whereby he affirmed the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Singrauli in unregistered case of 2004, thereby private complaint filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. Facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that petitioner has filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Singrauli under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC against the respondents. Learned Magistrate has dismissed the aforesaid private complaint. After considering the facts of the case and reached to the conclusion that complaint was filed by Dadu, who said to have been deceased and Devan, father of respondents No. 1 and 2, who said to have been committed the forgery, have not been made party to the private complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, applicant filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, but Additional Sessions Judge, Baidan dismissed the aforesaid revision petition after making the observation that petition filed by the applicant/complainant was not tenable u/s 195 of Cr.P.C. He further observed that matter was of civil nature and trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the order of dismissal of the complaint u/s 203 of Cr.P.C., hence this petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that trial Court as well as Revisional Court have committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that view taken by the revisional Court that complaint was not tenable due to the bar of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. It is not correct because the alleged forgery has not been committed during the time when the document was in Court (custodia legis). He placed reliance on Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, .

It is specifically made an allegation in the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class that respondents No. 1 and 2 has prepared the forged document with the help of respondent No. 3 Mahavir Prasad (Petition Writer) wherein thumb impression/signature of Dadu, father of Bhagwandas, has been made by respondents and aforesaid forged document shown to be executed between Dadu and Devan, father of respondents No. 1 and 2 and then same has been produced in the civil suit No. 147 A/2004 for taking the benefit of aforesaid document in their favour. In these circumstances, trial Court was also misconceived that Devan was a necessary party and Devan said to have deceived Dadu (father of applicant), therefore prays for setting aside the order passed by the courts below.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported and justified the order passed by the courts below and further submitted that it is a case of purely of civil nature, therefore, no offence has been made out from the application made in the private complaint. He placed reliance on Devendra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, and prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have perused the impugned order and other material on record.

It is undisputed on record that the document is said to have been prepared by forgery was produced in civil suit No. 147-A/2004, After disposal of the aforesaid civil suit No. 147-A/2004, the applicant has filed private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class which shows that alleged forgery has been committed before filing the document in the civil Court and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. This point is elaborately discussed and ultimately aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra). In the present case also, none of the party has pleaded that the offence of forgery has been committed after, the aforesaid document has been produced or given in the Court. Thus, view taken by the revisional Court is not sustainable under law and same is liable to be set aside.

As far as dispute of civil nature and the fact that forgery or deception committed by whom is concerned, since it is specifically pleaded in private complaint that respondents No. 1 and 2 prepared the forged document with the assistance of respondent No. 3 and same has been filed in Civil Suit No. 147-A/2004. In these circumstances, deceased Dadu as well as Devan, father of respondents No. 1 and 2 are not necessary party to the private compliant.

Considering the nature of pleading, the evidence would have been produced before the trial Court, regarding the fact that, the disputed document is not bearing the thumb impression of Dadu and his thumb impression made by forgery, in the name of father of respondents No. 1 and 2 for getting the benefit of aforesaid document in the civil suit No. 7A/1996. In these circumstances, dispute cannot be said of purely of civil nature. Thus, principle laid down in Devendar and others (supra) is not applicable in this case.

Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that trial Court as well as Revisional Court have committed illegality in dismissing the private complaint filed by applicant. If orders of Courts below remain continued it will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Courts below is hereby set aside and trial Magistrate is directed to proceed further according to law.