Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 11 (AP)

JITHENDRA K. MEHTA v. State

2000-01-18

VAMAN RAO

body2000
( 1 ) CRIMINAL Petition Nos. 3124 and 3125 of 1999 arise out of the same proceedings and transactions and as such they have been heard together and common order has been passed. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 3124 of 1999 has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 220 of 1998 of banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 427 and 447 of ipc. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to registering of FIR against the petitioner as stated in the petition may be narrated as follows: one Smt. Rani Jayanthi wife of Raja dhaaram Koran was the absolute owner of the property bearing municipal No. 8-2-547 situated at Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, hyderabad. As the property fell in the ambit of Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976, she filed a declaration under the said Act. During the ceiling proceedings, the said Rani Jayanthi died on 12-12-1979 leaving her heirs including sons and daughters. They filed a declaration before the Special Officer and Competent authority, Hyderabad stating that the said jayanthi Rani bequeathed her entire property to her grandchildren and to her great grandchildren and they have no right whatsoever over the property. The great grandchildren and grandchildren of Smt. Rani Jayanthi including the children of Gulab Kishorie, one of the daughters of the original owner participated in the ceiling proceedings. After enquiry, the Special Officer, Urban Land ceiling, Hyderabad declared an extent of 797. 38 square meters as surplus land. One smt. Asthana, the daughter of Rani Jayanthi who represented some of the grandchildren of said Jayanthi Rani tried to surrender the surplus land out of the portion which is under the control of the petitioner. Subsequently, the said proceedings were dropped. ( 4 ) IT is stated that the said Jayanthi Rani executed a will dated 9-10-1979 in respect of the above mentioned property and accordingly the said property devolved upon her grand children and great grandhildren. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale on 14-6-1991 in respect of 2,400 square yards which has fallen to the share of one Anuritha Kumar, Pramod kumar, Sajid Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Sunil kumar who are no other than the great grandchildren of Jayanthi Rani. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale on 14-6-1991 in respect of 2,400 square yards which has fallen to the share of one Anuritha Kumar, Pramod kumar, Sajid Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Sunil kumar who are no other than the great grandchildren of Jayanthi Rani. While the agreement was in force, the land was sold out to different individuals with the consent of the petitioner. The last such sale deed was executed on 12-12-1996 in respect of 450 square yards in favour of one Sohrab J. Mosgani. The sale deed was executed by sunil Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Pramod Kumar, sajid Kumar and Anuritha Kumar. The petitioner acted as a GPS holder holding general power of attorney for Sunil Kumar, pramod Kumar and Sajid Kumar in executing sale deed in favour of one Sohrabji mojgani. ( 5 ) IT is stated that Smt. Gulab Kishorie, who has no right or title over the property with a view to grab the property instituted both the civil and criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The said gulab Kishorie lodged a false report before the Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad on 24-4-1998 alleging that she was the owner of the property admeasuring 450 square yards situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and that the said property was looked after by her employees Babul and Krishna and on 24-4-1998 some unknown persons about 5 or 6 came in a TATA van and parked the same near the plot and that the said persons trespassed into the property and removed the name board there and that when it was questioned by employees, they threatened them and stated that they have come to the property as per the instructions of the petitioner herein and thus requested that the action to be taken against them. The said report was registered as a Crime No. 220 of 1998 for the alleged offences under sections 447 and 427 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC. ( 6 ) IT is stated that the police at the instance of one Sri Sushil Kumar, ex-Director General and Inspector General of Police registered the said case with a view to harass the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested at the instance of said Director General of police on 3-6-1998 and thereafter he was released on bail. ( 6 ) IT is stated that the police at the instance of one Sri Sushil Kumar, ex-Director General and Inspector General of Police registered the said case with a view to harass the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested at the instance of said Director General of police on 3-6-1998 and thereafter he was released on bail. It is stated that Smt. Gulab kishorie instituted OS No. 2128 of 1998 on the file of the XIV Junior Civil Judge, City civilcourt, Hyderabad seeking permanent injunction in respect of the same land and also filed IA No. 677 of 1998 seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and his vendee Shrob J. Mosgani. The learned XIV Junior Civil Judge, hyderabad after thorough enquiry by order dated 11-8-1998 dismissed the said IA holding that she did not make out a prima facie case and did not have balance of convenience in her favour and vacated the interim injunction. The learned Judge also held that the said Gulab Kishorie is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. ( 7 ) IT is stated that the police with a view to favour the former Director General and Inspector General of Police Sri Sushil kumar filed Criminal MP No. 6075 of 1998 in Crime No. 220 of 1998 before the xv Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad seeking a direction to call for the original agreement of sale from XIV Junior Civil judge, Hyderabad to send it to hand-writing expert as she was suspecting the agreement of sale as a fabricated one. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on 2-12-1998 holding that the matter was purely of civil nature. However, the order of the learned Magistrate was challenged in Criminal RP No. 7 of 1999 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, hyderabad who set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed the xix Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad to send the agreement of sale to enable the police to send it to the handwriting expert to ascertain whether the said document is a forged one or not. Thus, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the criminal revision petition. ( 8 ) IT is stated that Smt. Gulab Kishorie, the de facto complainant filed OS No. 2128 of 1998 on the file of the xv Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule land. Thus, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the criminal revision petition. ( 8 ) IT is stated that Smt. Gulab Kishorie, the de facto complainant filed OS No. 2128 of 1998 on the file of the xv Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule land. In the IA filed in that suit, she stated that she came to know about the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. ( 9 ) IT is submitted that in that suit, the de facto complainant did not whisper about the alleged forged agreement of sale and it was only an after thought that the police filed the petition seeking a direction to call for the agreement of sale from the XV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. It is averred that the de facto complainant is an influential person relating to Sri Sushil Kumar Ex- director General and Inspector General of Police and hence the police filed the above application. ( 10 ) IT is stated that as civil Court has already taken cognizance of the matter, it is proper that the civil Court should adjudicate the same. It is thus stated that the criminal case registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC has no legs to stand. It is stated that the ingredient of offence as defined under Section 441 of IPC have not been made out at all from the allegations in the complaint. It is stated that the de facto complainant has no title to the property and she is not in possession of the property as held by the XV Junior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is also stated that no allegations have been made which could constitute the offence under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. Thus, it is stated that the allegations in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of offence under Sections 447 and 427 of ipc and the complaint has been made with mala fide intention to convert what is essentially a civil dispute into a criminal proceedings to harass the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that the proceedings may be quashed. ( 11 ) NO formal counter has been filed on behalf of the State. Hence, it is prayed that the proceedings may be quashed. ( 11 ) NO formal counter has been filed on behalf of the State. It is however stated that apart from registering the fir under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC, in view of the subsequent complaints from Smt. Gulab Kishorie in continuation of the original complaint, the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC have also been added in the said FIR. It is stated that it is not a case where from the allegations in the complaint, it could be held positively that the ingredients of offences alleged have not been made out and as such the proceedings cannot be quashed. ( 12 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 3125 of 1999 has been filed for quashing the order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge in criminal RP No. 7 of 1999 dated 5-5-1999 under which he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned V Metropolitan magistrate in Criminal MP No. 6705 of 1998 in Crime No. 220 of 1998 of Banjara Hills police Station wherein the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution (police) to call for a document from the civil Court for sending it to the hand writing expert. ( 13 ) IT is stated that in respect of the land, namely 450 square yards of land out of Municipal House No. 8-2-547 situated at road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad relating to which the offences are said to have been committed by the petitioners in both these criminal Petitions, a civil suit was filed by the de facto complainant herein Smt. Gulab kishorie in OS No. 2128 of 1998 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil Judge seeking permanent injunction in respect of the said land. It appears in that suit, she filed ia No. 677 of 1998 in which ex parte temporary injunction was sought and the same was dismissed. ( 14 ) IT is stated that the police under the influence of the former Director General and Inspector General of Police, Sri Sushil kumar, with a view to help the de facto complainant in the criminal case and the plaintiff in the suit Smt. Gulab Kishorie filed Criminal MP No. 6075 of 1998 in Crime no. ( 14 ) IT is stated that the police under the influence of the former Director General and Inspector General of Police, Sri Sushil kumar, with a view to help the de facto complainant in the criminal case and the plaintiff in the suit Smt. Gulab Kishorie filed Criminal MP No. 6075 of 1998 in Crime no. 220 of 1998 before the learned metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad seeking a direction to call for the original agreement of sale from XV Junior Civil Judge, hyderabad to send it to handwriting expert as she suspected the agreement of sale was a fabricated document. The learned magistrate after hearing dismissed the said petition on 2-12-1998 holding that it was a purely dispute of civil nature and the civil court has already taken cognizance of the matter for adjudication and the question whether the document was forged could be decided by the civil Court when the said document would be challenged. Against mis order, a criminal revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal rp No. 7 of 1999 and the learned metropolitan Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. It is stated that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge acted contrary to the well established principles of law and the order of the learned metropolitan Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr. PC. ( 15 ) IT is further stated that Smt. Gulab Kishorie filed suit OS No. 2128 of 1998 seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, she filed IA No. 677 of 1998 along with an affidavit seeking temporary injunction. In the said affidavit, she stated about the execution of agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner to challenge which she had filed the suit but she did not whisper about the forging of the document or fabricating it. It is stated that it was only an after thought. ( 16 ) IT is stated that the petition to call for the document from the civil Court was made for extraneous. reasons under the influence of a retired high police official who is related to the plaintiff and the de facto complainant. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge s order may be quashed. ( 16 ) IT is stated that the petition to call for the document from the civil Court was made for extraneous. reasons under the influence of a retired high police official who is related to the plaintiff and the de facto complainant. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge s order may be quashed. ( 17 ) DURING the pendency of these proceedings, the de facto complainant Smt. Gulab Kishorie filed a petition to implead her as a party to these proceedings and on her behalf, learned senior counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy had advanced his arguments apart from the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. ( 18 ) IN regard to quashing of criminal proceedings, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Gangiah Naidu has advanced two fold contentions. It is firstly contended that the original FIR for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC cannot stand inasmuch as the allegations in the complaint given by smt. Gulab Kishorie even if are assumed to be true do not make out the said offences. It may be mentioned here that the FIR issued on the basis of the complaint does not show the accused against whom the case has been registered. In the column relating to the names of the accused, what is mentioned is as follows:"5/6 persons came in a vehicle TATA van No. MR 01 R 2764" ( 19 ) THUS, as of now, the petitioner is not shown as an accused at all. It is true that even from the allegations as they are, inasmuch as the petitioner did not go in the alleged van and did not enter the field as per the complaint, offences under sections 447 and 427 of IPC cannot be linked to the petitioner. However, the contents of the complaint do go to show that when enquired with those strangers, they told them that as per the instructions from one Jitendra Mehta and Sohrab J. Mohgani they went to the property. Thus, the allegations may amount to abatement of offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC assuming that the de facto complainant was in possession. However, the question whether the de facto complainant was in possession or not is itself a disputed question. Thus, the allegations may amount to abatement of offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC assuming that the de facto complainant was in possession. However, the question whether the de facto complainant was in possession or not is itself a disputed question. ( 20 ) IN regard to the other offences, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Station House Officer has adopted a very curious procedure of taking further complaints from the original de facto complainant Smt. Gulab Kishorie and tagging them on to the original complaint as continuation of the complaint. The learned counsel points out that in one such further complaint dated 27-4-1998, the de facto complainant is purported to have informed the police that Sri J. K. Mehta committed cheating by selling away her land by deception. He also points out that by a further complaint dated 11-8-1998, the said de facto complainant brought to the notice of the police about the alleged offence under sections 468 and 471 of IPC. In this complaint it is stated that in the interlocutory application filed by the de facto complainant, sri J. K. Mehta filed a counter affidavit on 18-6-1998 along with an agreement of sale dated 14-6-1991 which is said to be fabricated and purports to show that her three sons and two grand daughters have handed over 2400 square yards under agreement of sale whereas the actual agreement dated 14-6-1991, whose xerox copy had been obtained, the extent of land has been shown as 1865 square yards which excludes her land. Thus, it is alleged that in respect of this agreement, offences under sections 447 and 468 IPC have been committed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that tagging of further complaints to an FIR already issued on the basis of the earlier complaint is not permissible. ( 21 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that the subsequent complaint given by the complainant may be treated as further information conveyed to the investigating agency which has already registered a case on the basis of the first complaint. ( 22 ) CONSIDERING the order I propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary to decide whether the procedure followed by the Station House Officer in this case is correct or not. ( 22 ) CONSIDERING the order I propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary to decide whether the procedure followed by the Station House Officer in this case is correct or not. ( 23 ) THE substantive contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, is that in this case the allegations in the complaint do not make out offences alleged against the petitioner (It may be mentioned that in the remand report apart from Sections 447, 427, 420, 468 and 471, the offences under Sections 503 and 379 of IPC have also been mentioned as being offences relating to FIR 220 of 1998 ). ( 24 ) ON the other hand, the learned senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy who argued in support of the petition for impleading Smt. Gulab Kishorie, the de facto complainant in the proceedings, contended that the offence of criminal trespass under section 447 IPC and offence of mis-chief under Section 427 of IPC can be said to have been made out from the allegations inasmuch as there is an assertion that some persons at the instance of the petitioner herein trespassed into the land of the complainant and removed the name board. It is also asserted that inasmuch as there is an allegation that the agreement of sale filed in the Court on behalf of the petitioner dated 14-6-1991 is said to have been forged by altering the extent of land covered by the agreement, offences under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC must be said to have been made out. The learned Public Prosecutor also contended likewise. ( 25 ) THE other contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Gangiah Naidu is that if the dispute is viewed in its entirety, it is obvious that it is essentially a civil dispute between the parties and that inasmuch as the matter is already seized of by the civil Court to decide the very questions which are required to be investigated into in respect of criminal offences, the first information report must be quashed. ( 26 ) IT is obvious that the offence under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC basically depend on the question as to whether the de facto complainant Smt. Gulab Kishorie was in fact in possession over the disputed land. ( 26 ) IT is obvious that the offence under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC basically depend on the question as to whether the de facto complainant Smt. Gulab Kishorie was in fact in possession over the disputed land. Obviously, the other offences under sections 468 and 471 of IPC depend on the question whether the agreement of sale was forged. These are the basic questions of fact which have a bearing on the question as to whether any offences have been made out. ( 27 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as it is a matter of civil dispute, the criminal proceedings cannot stand. It cannot be stated as a general rule that whenever the acts attributed constitute civil wrong and there is a civil dispute raised in respect ofthe alleged acts, criminal proceedings do not lie against the perpetrators of those acts. ( 28 ) THERE may be cases where the dispute or the acts attributed might give rise to only a civil wrong, which could be described purely as a civil dispute. But, there might be cases in which acts attributed to the alleged wrong doer might result not only in a civil dispute involving a civil wrong but also might constitute a criminal offence. ( 29 ) IN this case, if the agreement of sale in question is found to have been forged by the accused and has been sought to be used by the accused in a proceedings in the Court knowing that it was forged, then the offence under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC would be constituted irrespective of the effect of such finding on the result in the civil proceedings pending between the parties. Similarly, if it is found that the accused with prior and full knowledge that the de facto complainant was in effective possession over the disputed land, trespassed or attempted to trespass into that land it would amount to criminal offence of trespass apart from the fact that the finding of the civil Court that the de facto complainant was in possession might also have an important implication in the civil suit. ( 30 ) THE special feature appearing in this case is that in respect of both these questions, namely, whether the de facto complainant was in possession of the disputed land in question and whether the agreement of sale in question was forged or sought to be used as a forged document are very much material questions which are required to be determined in the civil suit filed by the de facto complainant. The finding of the civil Court would obviously be binding in the criminal case. If the criminal proceedings are quashed at this stage and if later the civil Court gives a finding that the agreement of sale in question was a forged one and that the de facto complainant to the knowledge of the petitioner was in established possession of the land in question, it would amount to preventing the investigating agency from prosecuting the accused in respect of matter which might constitute an offence. On the other hand, allowing the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file charge-sheet and proceed with criminal case against the accused would interfere with the fair prosecution of the civil proceedings. The accused will be under constant threat of criminal proceedings even before the civil Court had given an authoritative pronouncement on the questions of fact involved. If the criminal case ends in conviction and the accused undergoes a possible sentence of imprisonment and if thereafter civil Court comes to a contrary finding, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. ( 31 ) THE other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in respect of offences under Sections 468 and 471 of ipc, the de facto complainant cannot be permitted to prosecute the accused in view of the bar contained under section 195 (l) (b) (ii) of the Criminal procedure Code. But, as held by the supreme Court in the case of Sachidanand singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1121 , the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of Cr. PC is not applicable to a case where forgery of a document was committed before the document was produced into the Court and it has been held that the scope of preliminary enquiry envisaged in section 340 (1) of Cr. PC is not applicable to a case where forgery of a document was committed before the document was produced into the Court and it has been held that the scope of preliminary enquiry envisaged in section 340 (1) of Cr. PC is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect ofa document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that court. It has been held by the Supreme court that the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis. As this does not seem to be the case as appearing from the facts stated, the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) does not apply. ( 32 ) IT is pointed out by the learned senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the impleading petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that even otherwise the bar under Section 195 of Cr. PC is in respect of taking of cognizance of offence after completion of investigation. But, the power of police to investigate into the FIR as to the offences is not controlled or circumscribed by embargo under Section 195 of Cr. PC. It has been so held in the case of State of Punjab v. Raj singh, AIR 1998 SC 768 . ( 33 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a few decisions in support of his contention that in case no offence has been made out from the FIR, the proceedings must be quashed. He refers to the case of madhavarao v. Sambhajirao. , AIR 1988 SC 709 . He also refers to the cases of State of up. v. R. K. Srivastava, AIR 1989 SC 2222 and Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo, AIR 1979 sc 850 and also a judgment of this Court in the case of Y. Lawrence v. State of A. P. , 1979 (2) ALT (Crl.) 478 (A. P.) and a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Bhivraj and another v. Ravindra and another, 1987 (1) Crimes 173. ( 34 ) I have carefully gone through these decisions and I find that in all these cases a bare reading of facts disclosed that no offence alleged against the accused could be made out and hence the proceedings were directed to be quashed. ( 34 ) I have carefully gone through these decisions and I find that in all these cases a bare reading of facts disclosed that no offence alleged against the accused could be made out and hence the proceedings were directed to be quashed. But, as stated above, in this case it is not possible to hold that no offence has been made out on the basis of the allegations made against the accused in the complaints. As stated above, whether the agreement of sale in question was forged by the accused is a question of fact which has to be determined. The other question whether the de facto complainant was in possession of the disputed land to the knowledge of the petitioner is also again a question of fact which requires to be gone into. ( 35 ) CONSIDERING these circumstances and the special features in this case, it is directed that while the investigation may continue charge-sheet if any resulting from such investigation shall not be taken cognizance by the concerned criminal Court till the civil suit in which the very questions are involved has been decided. However, considering these circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations made and considering the apprehension of the petitioner that the investigating agency is proceeding on extraneous considerations, the petitioner shall be permitted to have his advocate or any friend with him during his interrogation and the petitioner shall be given sufficient time and opportunity to secure the presence of his advocate or friend. ( 36 ) IN regard to Criminal Petition No. 3125 of 1999, the learned Magistrate while dismissing the petition for calling for the documents from the civil Court to enable the prosecution to send it to the handwriting expert observed that investigation done by the police reveals that the complainant s children and grand children executed general power of attorney in favour of the accused to manage the property and accordingly he sold the land. The learned Magistrate further noted that if the accused acted beyond the power vested with him under the general power of attorney and sold land in dispute without consent or knowledge of the concerned, it is purely a question of civil nature and the civil Court has already taken cognizance and seized of the matter for adjudication. The learned Magistrate further noted that if the accused acted beyond the power vested with him under the general power of attorney and sold land in dispute without consent or knowledge of the concerned, it is purely a question of civil nature and the civil Court has already taken cognizance and seized of the matter for adjudication. The learned Magistrate also held that if any forgery or fraud was played in the transaction for securing the document which is now sought to be called for, it is open to the complainant to participate in the said civil proceedings and challenge the document and ask the Court to send it for the opinion of expert. Thus, the basis on which the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition was that as this very document is a subject matter of adjudication by the civil Court and inasmuch as the de facto complainant is a party to the civil proceedings, it is open to her to ask for sending the document to the expert and on this ground he dismissed the petition. The learned Metropolitan Sessions judge set aside this order and allowed the petition for calling for the document. ( 37 ) BEFORE going to the merits of this order, it may be pointed out that the order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions judge discloses some factual errors. In para 2 of the order, it is stated that in the complaint of Smt. Gulab Kishorie it is alleged that on the night of 23-4-1998, the petitioner J. K. Mehta and others trespassed into the land and removed the name board from her land. The complaint does not show that J. K. Mehta went to the land. ( 38 ) IN Para 3 of the order, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge appears to have proceeded on the assumption that it came to light during the investigation that the accused has fabricated some documents specially the agreement of sale by forging the signatures of the complainant and that those documents were filed in IA No. 677 of 1998 in OS No. 2128 of 1998 on the file of the XIV Junior Civil Judge. A perusal of the material papers specially the complaint given by Smt. Gulab Kishorie to the police dated 11-8-1998 in which the allegation of forgery of the document has been made does not disclose that the de facto complainant s signature was forged. A perusal of the material papers specially the complaint given by Smt. Gulab Kishorie to the police dated 11-8-1998 in which the allegation of forgery of the document has been made does not disclose that the de facto complainant s signature was forged. I do not want to speculate whether these errors of fact had influenced the order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge but it is unfortunate that such mistakes crept in. ( 39 ) COMING to the grounds on which the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the revision against the order of the learned Magistrate, the learned sessions Judge gave his principal reason as follows:"a case under Sections 420, 447, 506 and 379 of IPC is registered against mehta, the accused and it is the duty of the police, while investigating the case to ascertain whether the documents filed by the said Mehta are forged one or not, as a case was registered against him for cheating and forging of the documents. The police themselves have the power to obtain the document from the civil court. But by the way of caution, the police have filed this memo before the V Metropolitan Magistrate to call for the document. But, the learned magistrate without applying his mind has dismissed the said petition. The police have every power to call for any document and to send it to the expert, that too in a case of cheating and forgery. The learned Magistrate ought to have ordered to call for the document to enable the police to send it to the handwriting expert. " ( 40 ) THIS would indicate that the learned Magistrate Sessions Judge allowed the revision and accordingly the petition for calling for the document mainly on the ground that the police had a duty to investigate and that the police themselves have the powers to call for any document and the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind. ( 41 ) IT is seen that the learned Magistrate elaborately discussed the matter and expressed his opinion that as the very document is subject matter of adjudication before the civil Court, the police need not be permitted to send the documents to an expert. ( 41 ) IT is seen that the learned Magistrate elaborately discussed the matter and expressed his opinion that as the very document is subject matter of adjudication before the civil Court, the police need not be permitted to send the documents to an expert. On the other hand, the learned metropolitan Sessions Judge failed to give any consideration to this circumstance mat in respect of very question, a civil suit was already pending and the parties had an opportunity to ask the civil Court to send the document- for the opinion of the expert. ( 42 ) CONSIDERING the order passed by me as above in respect of the criminal proceedings that the charge-sheet shall not be taken cognizance till the civil suit is decided, the order of the learned Metropolitan sessions Judge allowing the petition for calling for the document from the civil Court and either handing it over to the police for obtaining expert s opinion or sending it to the expert at the instance of the police may have adverse repercussion on the proper conduct of the civil suit, which may lead to mis-carriage of justice. Under the circumstances, I deem it a fit case where by invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr. PC, the order of the learned Metropolitan sessions Judge in Criminal RP No. 7 of 1999 may be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. ( 43 ) IN the result, Criminal Petition No. 3124 of 1999 is disposed of in the terms as indicated above and Criminal Petition no. 3125 of 1999 is allowed.