Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1250 (MP)

Krishan Gopal Sharma v. State of M. P.

2013-10-11

D.K.Paliwal

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by preferring this petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 3397/2012 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 193 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed on behalf of Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma, Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi for mutation with regard to surveys No. 943, 944, 946, 952 and 953 situated at village Mehra, on the basis of registered sale-deed executed by Babusingh in their favour. In support of the application, affidavit of Dr. Krishnagopal sharma, which was notarized by Notary R.D.Sharma and identified by Advocate Navnidhi Parharya, was filed along with the Vakalatnama of Shri Navnidhi Parharya Advocate. The case was registered as case No.119/07-08/A-6 (new No.222/2010-2011/A-6). The advertisement was issued on the application. After the publication of advertisement, an application was filed by counsel Shri Raju Sharma on behalf of Smt. Bharti Deshwal alleging that Smt. Bharti Deshwal has neither purchased the aforesaid land, nor she has filed any application or Vakalatnama and her signature has been forged on the application. Thereafter, petitioner Krishangopal Sharma has filed an application alleging that he has not signed the application for mutation, affidavit and Vakalatnama and it is prayed that the application be dismissed. On the basis of the application of the petitioner, the application for mutation was dismissed, however, taking into consideration that application has been filed after forging the signature, enquiry was held. During enquiry, it was found that in the application for mutation and Vakalatnama, the signatures of Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi are forged. During enquiry, the petitioner was also summoned. His statement was recorded and he deposed that he never appeared before Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary, to execute the affidavit and he has also not signed the affidavit and Vakalatnama. The statement of Shri Navnidhi Parharya was also recorded in which he has stated that Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma has contacted him and asked him to file the mutation proceeding. Krishnagopal Sharma also showed him registered sale-deed and other documents. Thereafter, he has submitted the application. Statement of Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary, was also recorded who has stated that he has notarized the affidavit of Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma. On the basis of the enquiry, it was found that Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma also showed him registered sale-deed and other documents. Thereafter, he has submitted the application. Statement of Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary, was also recorded who has stated that he has notarized the affidavit of Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma. On the basis of the enquiry, it was found that Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma has filed the application forging the signatures of Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi, therefore, an order was passed, on the basis of which a complaint has been filed before the CJM, Gwalior, against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and perverse. The signature of the petitioner has been forged on the application filed before the Tahsildar. The petitioner has complained before the Tahsildar that his signatures were forged on the application, affidavit and Vakalatnama, but enquiry was conducted by the Patwari on the orders of Tahsildar only in respect of signatures of Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi. It is further submitted that Tahsildar is not an expert to check the forged signatures. It is also submitted that Court of Tahsildar is not a Court. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing on the report of Patwari. No standard signature of the petitioner has been taken to compare the alleged signatures. There is no material to show that alleged signatures were made by the petitioner. It is further submitted that Tahsildar himself has conducted an enquiry under section 340 of CrPC, but the petitioner has never been served with the copy of the charge-sheet or show cause notice regarding the same. The petitioner was not informed that his statement is being recorded in pursuance of any enquiry regarding the forged signatures. The petitioner was never informed that enquiry is going on against him. The complaint on the face of it is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is prayed that order passed by the Tahsildar dated 26.3.2012 (Annexure A-1) and criminal complaint instituted against the petitioner (Annexure A-2) and consequently the proceeding before the learned JMFC be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has submitted that prima facie the complaint discloses the commission of offence under section 193 of IPC, hence, complaint cannot be quashed. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has submitted that prima facie the complaint discloses the commission of offence under section 193 of IPC, hence, complaint cannot be quashed. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. 6. From the perusal of Annexure A/1, it appears that an application for mutation on the basis of registered sale-deed has been filed on behalf of petitioner Krihanagopal Sharma, Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi along with affidavit of Krishnagopal Sharma, which was notarized by Shri R.D.Sharma and identified by Shri Navnidhi Parharha Advocate, and Vakalatnama. After advertisement, an application was filed on behalf of Smt. Bharti Deshwal that she has not purchased the land and she has not filed any application for mutation. Her signatures on the said application and Vakalatnama are forged. Later on, an application was filed by the petitioner through his counsel Shri Vivek Shrivastava that signatures of Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma on the application for mutation, affidavit and Vakalatnama are forged. No such application has been filed on his behalf. It was prayed that application be dismissed. On this, the application was dismissed, however, taking note of the fact that an application has been filed for mutation forging the signatures which is a serious offence, an enquiry was conducted by Tahsildar under section 340 of CrPC and during enquiry, the statements of petitioner, father of Smt. Preeti Tripathi, Shri Navnidhi Parharya Advocate, Shri R.D.Sharma Notary, Smt. Preeti Tripathi have been recorded and ultimately it was found that the application has been filed by petitioner Krishnagopal Sharma forging the signatures of Smt. Preeti Tripathi and Smt. Bharti Deshwal and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 193 of IPC, hence, it is necessary to file a complaint under section 195 of CrPC 7. Annexure A/2 is the complaint filed against the petitioner in which the facts stated above have been mentioned praying that action may be taken. Annexure A/3 is the application for dismissing the application for mutation which has been filed along with affidavit, Annexure A/4. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no enquiry was conducted in respect of the forged signatures of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Patwari is not an expert to check the forged signatures and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no enquiry was conducted in respect of the forged signatures of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Patwari is not an expert to check the forged signatures and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. This submission is devoid of any merits because in Annexure A/1 para 7 it is categorically mentioned that an enquiry has been made by the Tahsildar himself. Patwari was also directed to conduct an enquiry and report. In para 8, it is mentioned that during enquiry the statements of Krishnagopal Sharma, Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, Navnidhi Parharha Advocate, Shri R.D.Sharma Notary and Smt. Preeti Tripathi have been recorded. In paras 10 and 11 reference of the statements of the aforesaid persons has been made. Thus, Annexure A/1, makes it clear that an enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar under the provisions of section 340 of CrPC 9. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was never served with any charge-sheet or show cause notice regarding the enquiry conducted under section 340 of CrPC This submission is also devoid of any merits because statement of the petitioner was recorded and he was fully aware that an enquiry is going on. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the order of dismissal of the fraudulent case No. 222/10-11/A-6. It is pertinent to mention that an application on behalf of the petitioner has been made through his counsel Shri Vivek Shrivastava for dismissing the aforesaid case, therefore, there was no question for supplying the copy of the order. 11. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no material to show that alleged signatures were made by the petitioner. This submission has no force because as noted hereinabove in Annexure A/1 Shri Navnidhi Parharya Advocate has categorically stated that petitioner contacted him, showed the relevant documents and asked him to file an application for mutation. Not only this, Shri Navnidhi Parharya Advocate has categorically stated that in his presence, the petitioner has signed the Vakalatnama and affidavit notarized by Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary. Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary, has also corroborated this fact. Not only this, Shri Navnidhi Parharya Advocate has categorically stated that in his presence, the petitioner has signed the Vakalatnama and affidavit notarized by Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary. Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary, has also corroborated this fact. Thus, in view of the statements of these witnesses, it cannot be stated that prima facie there is no material to hold that application, affidavit and Vakalatnama were not signed by the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the following judgments :- 1. Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1998 SC 1121 ; 2. Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another, AIR 2005 SC 2119 ; and 3. B.K.Gupta v. Damodar H. Bajaj and others, 2002 SCC (Cri) 1103. 13. In Sachida Nand Singh (supra) a complaint was filed by second respondent (Lal Narain Singh) in the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging offences, inter alia, under sections 468, 469 and 471 of IPC on the facts that appellants had forged a document (certified copy of Jamabandi-Rent Roll) and produced it in a Court of Executive Magistrate which was then dealing with proceedings under section 145 of the Code. Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police as provided in section 156(3) of the Code. Police registered an FIR on the basis of the said complaint and after investigation laid a charge-sheet against appellants for those offences. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of those offences and issued process to the accused. Appellants then moved Patna High Court under section 482 of the Code for quashing the prosecution on the main ground that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the said offences in view of the bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code. In this case, it has been held that bar contained in section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. In Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) the apex Court has endorsed its earlier decision rendered in Sachida Nand Singh. The facts of the aforesaid cases are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, the complaint has been filed by the Tahsildar in whose Court a forged application along with affidavit and Vakalatnama was filed. In Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) the apex Court has endorsed its earlier decision rendered in Sachida Nand Singh. The facts of the aforesaid cases are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, the complaint has been filed by the Tahsildar in whose Court a forged application along with affidavit and Vakalatnama was filed. Hence, both the case laws are of no help to the petitioner. 14. In B.K.Gupta (supra), it has been held that there are two conditions on fulfillment of which a complaint can only be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a proceeding before a Court. Firstly, that a person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the court and, secondly, in the opinion of the Court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him. In the instant case, the aforesaid two conditions have been fulfilled because the application along with affidavit and Vakalatnama on which forged signatures have been made was filed before the Tahsildar and after an enquiry Tahsildar held that it appears necessary to proceed against the petitioner, therefore, this case law is of no help to the petitioner. 15. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court of Tahsildar does not fall within the purview of the Court is also devoid of any merit because under section 195(3), it has been provided that in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term Court means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. 16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I come to the conclusion that no case is made out for exercise of extraordinary powers under section 482 of CrPC Petition is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. ..........