JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. This second appeal is directed by the plaintiff/appellant who has failed in both the courts below, against judgment of Additional Distt. Judge, Sheopur-kalan, Distt. Morena dated 27-3-1996 in Civil Appeal No. 1 A/89 from judgment and decree dated 24-12-1988 in Civil Suit No. 139-A/88 passed by III Civil Judge, Class II, Seopurkalan. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the appellate Court confirmed the judgment. The suit of the appellant was that he or his father was in possession of the disputed piece of land since 1960 on which he was running a hotel ever since. The Municipal Committee, Seopurkalan, gave notice to him to vacate the same. He claimed to have obtained this piece of land from Raja Sahib of Baroda on Patta on 15-2-1948 for Rs. 80/- for which the sale deed was effected by Kamdar sahib. It was also pleaded that the land was outside the municipal limits. It was also, however, pleaded in another part of plaint that the land was inside the municipal limits. The defendant had denied any right of the plaintiff on the said property and denied his possession. The trial court, in its judgment dated 24-12-1988, found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. He found that he had not obtained any rights in this land from any Raja. The document Ex. P-1 executed by Kamdar Vishnusharansingh (PW 4) on a piece of paper taken from some Bahi, was found to be not genuine. So it was not found that the plaintiff was having any title on this land. So the suit was dismissed. The first Appellate Court confirmed this finding and also found in a detailed discussion, that Ex. P-1 was a forged document forged by the plaintiff and PW 4 jointly. The detailed reasonings have been given in reaching the same finding. The appellate Court directed criminal proceedings for creating a forged document against plaintiff u/s 340, Criminal Procedure Code. The plaintiff's possession was not found. This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 1-8-1998 on the following substantial questions of law: Whether the court below was justified in initiating criminal proceeding against the appellant/plaintiff by not following the procedure prescribed u/s 340, Criminal Procedure Code? The plaintiff's possession was not found. This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 1-8-1998 on the following substantial questions of law: Whether the court below was justified in initiating criminal proceeding against the appellant/plaintiff by not following the procedure prescribed u/s 340, Criminal Procedure Code? Whether the courts below were justified in not granting the relief of injunction where the appellant's possession is admitted by defence evidence of DW 1 Badrilal Verma in para 1 of his statement and the finding recorded by the courts below ignoring this material evidence is sustainable in law? Whether the court below has not properly considered the pleadings and especially the written statement of respondent/municipal council? In memorandum of appeal, nothing has been stated against the findings of forged document Ex. P-1 and user of this forged document by the plaintiff and his witness PW 4. The assertion of the counsel for the appellant is that DW 1 Badrilal Verma, an employee of the municipal committee, in examination-in-chief, has stated that on the disputed land Satyanarayana has been in possession since before 1983 and his name is entered in the Nagar Palika. His statement was not challenged in cross-examination. The appellant's assertion is that this statement has not been referred by the courts below and its effects should have been seen, that this is an important piece of evidence and amounts to an admission by the only witness of the municipality, which has been totally ignored. His further argument is that plaintiff's evidence should have been given proper weight. He had claimed to be in possession of the land and that he is running his hotel since 1960. One Vishnusharansingh (PW 4) Kamdar has allegedly given Patta of this land to the father of this plaintiff vide Ex. P-1. The document Ex. P-1 purports to be of 16-2-1948 and purports to be a part of file No. 54, Samwat 2005. P.W. 4 Vishnusharansingh claimed that he was Kamdar in Baroda Jagir and Kamdar had full rights of Jagirdar. So he gave this patta Ex. P-1 and he signed it in favour of Mansukh and Ganeshnarayan. Ever since Mansukh, the father of the plaintiff, was in possession. According to him, Mansukh made a wire-fencing and then a Tapra. He denied the suggestion that it was a forged document. No other cross-examination has been directed on this witness. So he gave this patta Ex. P-1 and he signed it in favour of Mansukh and Ganeshnarayan. Ever since Mansukh, the father of the plaintiff, was in possession. According to him, Mansukh made a wire-fencing and then a Tapra. He denied the suggestion that it was a forged document. No other cross-examination has been directed on this witness. The argument of the counsel for the appellant is that in the light of the statement of Vishnusharansingh, the courts below should have considered him the owner of the property. His further argument is that the plaintiff was in possession since before the suit. He was entitled to relief of injunction against the municipality. In order to support this assertion, the counsel has relied upon a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), by his Lrs. Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, urging that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property, except by recourse to law. As against this, counsel for the municipal committee argued that a person who approaches the court in equity for equitable relief of injunction, cannot base his case by use of forged document. He relied upon the judgment in T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, and urged that abuse of process of court in a litigation has to be rebuffed by courts and that reliance on forged document is contempt of court and amounts to coming to court of equity with tainted hands as declared by the Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, . It is urged that a person who comes to the court with forged documents cannot claim equitable relief of injunction and cannot be helped. The two courts below have not considered the statement of DW 1. But the statement of DW 1 is not admission of the defendant. He did not bring the records of the municipality. We do not know whether he is employee of the municipality. He does not say so. He may be any person who might have been produced by the municipality or its counsel. His statement is not more than that of a witness. The conduct of the plaintiff is that of a forgerer or a conspirator using forged document. We do not know whether he is employee of the municipality. He does not say so. He may be any person who might have been produced by the municipality or its counsel. His statement is not more than that of a witness. The conduct of the plaintiff is that of a forgerer or a conspirator using forged document. The detailed reasonings have been given by the learned Distt. Judge to establish its forgery. Mentioning of Samvat 2005, on the date of this document i.e. 16-2-1948 establishes this fact. Various other reasons have also been given. Samvat 2005 had not begun on 16-2-1948. This is not disputed by counsel for the appellant by giving any Panchang or Jantri. It appears that the appellate Court looked into all these documents i.e. Panchang and Jantri for reaching its conclusion. It appears that a person claiming himself Kamdar has written a document and signed and pre-dated it at much later date. Who is Kamdar? Who was the Jagirdar? What rights the Kamdar had on behalf of Jagirdar, we do not know. The counsel is unable to explain. Whether Vishnusharansingh was at all a Kamdar, is not established. The argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the land is not shown in the municipal limits, so even if he is in possession of any land and is using the same, he cannot be thrown out by the municipality. The approach is totally wrong. A trespasser is to be denied all reliefs of injunction. The courts have never recognised that that rank trespasser can seek assistance of courts against owners of property. The observations of the Supreme Court in Krishna Ram Mahala's case was on its own facts and circumstances of settled possession of a licensee. That was expressed in its own context, and facts and circumstances of that case. Even limited protection of a wrong doer is now not considered germane to the interest of justice. A forgerer using forged document must not be entertained by courts of law by giving equitable relief of injunction. The inference would be that his statements are false and further that he must have tampered with the statement of witness of other party. It is a common knowledge that persons who are employees of the public undertakings like municipalities join hands with the litigants. The inference would be that his statements are false and further that he must have tampered with the statement of witness of other party. It is a common knowledge that persons who are employees of the public undertakings like municipalities join hands with the litigants. The statement of DW 1 could not be believed and should not be acted upon by the courts of law. It appears clear to this Court that the plaintiff, having used forged document and having conspired for the forgery of document as basis of his title was not entitled to any relief. His evidence must be discarded completely and has been discarded rightly by the two courts below. The observations of the first Appellate Court is that this plaintiff should be proceeded against for forging and using forged document under the provisions of Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code and that the trial court should issue notice to the plaintiff. As regards this, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has urged that this direction was not contemplated in section 340(2),Criminal Procedure Code and the Appellate Court, after making an enquiry, could send complaint to the magistrate if it so thought proper. There is no provision for direction to the trial court for making enquiry and filing complaint. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court given by single bench in the case of Nazir and another vs. State of M.P., 1999 R.N. 73. A perusal of this judgment shows that although the learned single judge considered the provisions of section 340(2), Criminal Procedure Code but also considered the facts and circumstances of the case and observed that the directions issued by the first Appellate Court was uncalled for. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court considers it just and proper in the larger public interest that the trial court should look into these aspects of forgery and use of forged document by plaintiff and PW 4 and should proceed u/s 340(1),Criminal Procedure Code. This Court in the larger interest of justice, considering that such abuse of process of courts should be dealt with sternly, in exercise of its inherent powers feels it proper to confirm this direction of the first Appellate Court. So, that direction is also confirmed. For the reasons discussed above, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. This Court in the larger interest of justice, considering that such abuse of process of courts should be dealt with sternly, in exercise of its inherent powers feels it proper to confirm this direction of the first Appellate Court. So, that direction is also confirmed. For the reasons discussed above, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed with costs and special costs of Rs. 2,000/-.