Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 406 (PNJ)

Panni v. Lachhman

2000-04-17

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 1.12.1984, passed by the JMIC, Jagadhri, who dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 120-A/120-B/468, Indian Penal Code, by holding that the Court was not competent to take cognizance of the commission of the present type of offence except on a complaint by the Court in which forgery has been allegedly committed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Paras Ram, father of the complainant Panni died about 40 years back before the institution of the present complaint. His widow Attari performed Karewa with one Surta who had gifted about 20 bighas of land and a house in her favour. Panni, complainant, is son of Attari from her first husband. Surta died on 2.7.1976, leaving behind Attari as his heir. It is alleged by the complainant that about 10/15 days of the death of Surta, the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy to forge a will and an adoption deed. The respondents conspired that a document be prepared showing that Rameshwar, accused No. 2, had been adopted by Surta before his death and he also executed a will in favour of some of the respondents before his death. A stamp paper of Rs. 3/- was purchased on 17.7.1976 at the suggestion of accused-Krishan Lal Sawhney, petition writer. A draft was, thereafter, prepared. In this way, a will and an agreement to sell some property were scribed by Krishan Lal Sawhney and the same were got attested from other accused. It was made to appear that the will was executed by Surta on 2.10.1968 although it was, in fact, prepared about 15/16 days after the death of Surta on 2.7.1976. According to the complainant, Surta was dead at the time of the preparation of a false document. The will in fact, bore the thumb impression of some other persons unknown to the complainant but it was made to show that it bore thumb impression of Surta. It is further the case of the complainant that respondent. No. 2 filed a civil suit on 22.7.1976 claiming ownership and possession of the property left by Surta on the basis of the will and adoption deed. However, in mutation proceedings the land left by Surta was mutated in favour of Attari. A civil suit was, thereafter, filed to challenge the mutation. No. 2 filed a civil suit on 22.7.1976 claiming ownership and possession of the property left by Surta on the basis of the will and adoption deed. However, in mutation proceedings the land left by Surta was mutated in favour of Attari. A civil suit was, thereafter, filed to challenge the mutation. The will was accepted as a genuine document by Shri J.B. Sharma, the then Sub Just Ist Class, and the suit filed by Rameshwar Dass for possession of the land left by Surta was decreed. However, it was held that Attari was the lawful wife and widow of Surta. An appeal against that judgment was filed in the Court of the learned Distt. Judge, Ambala, and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision. It was further alleged that an agreement was later on forged to usurp the property left by Surta. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint on 15.6.1981 to the effect that the respondents had entered into a criminal complaint and forged the will and an agreement, therefore, they allegedly committed the offences under Section 120-A/463/467, Indian Penal Code. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate, Jagadhri, vide order dated 5.2.1983, summoned the accused under Sections 120-A/463/467, Indian Penal Code. 4. The respondents made an application that the complaint be dismissed under Section 245 r/2 195, Criminal Procedure Code It was alleged that the complaint with regard to any document alleged to be a forged document produced before a Civil Court was barred under the provisions of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code It was further alleged that a private complaint in respect of the said document was not maintainable for the alleged offence of forgery. it was further alleged that the Presiding Officer of the Civil Court in whose court the alleged forged document was produced and was found to be so, was authorised to file a complaint for forgery. It was further pleaded that as a civil suit was still pending and no finding has been returned by the Civil Court that the will or any other document was forged and produced in the civil Court, therefore, the present complaint was not maintainable. 5. It was further pleaded that as a civil suit was still pending and no finding has been returned by the Civil Court that the will or any other document was forged and produced in the civil Court, therefore, the present complaint was not maintainable. 5. Notice of the application was given to the complainant and it was pleaded that the civil suit filed by Rameshwar Dass had already been dismissed by the Sub Judge, Jagadhri, on 26.5.1976 and it was held that the will produced was a forged document. It was, then, asserted that the complaint was maintainable as the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to forge the will and other documents. 6. The learned Magistrate after relying upon the provisions of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 1.12.1984 by holding that the complaint is not maintainable and that the Civil Court in whose Court the forged document was allegedly produced was alone competent to file the complaint. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the present revision. 8. I have gone through the grounds of revision and the impugned order. Section 195(b)(ii) lays down that no Court shall taken cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, 475 or 476, of the Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. 9. A reading of the above would show that only the Court in which the alleged forged document had been produced is competent to file the complaint. As the present complaint has not been filed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the criminal Court has no jurisdiction to take congizance into the matter and the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned Magistrate. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the said order. No merit. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.