Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1547 (RAJ)

Bhagwan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner complainant challenging the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in revision whereby the Revisional Court accepted the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 and quashed the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand whereby cognizance was taken against the respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. in relation to F.I.R. No. 336/2003 (Final Report No. 143/2003) P.S. Rajnagar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the specific allegation of the petitioner in the complaint was that the complainant's signatures were forged and thereby 214 bighus of land belonging to the complainant was usurped by the accused by creating a forged documents. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner specifically came with a case that his signatures on the document on the strength whereof the accused claims to have received the property are forged. Learned counsel pointed out to this Court the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, as per which it has been opined that the petitioner's signatures on the disputed sale deed is forged. Learned counsel thus contends that the Revisional Court committed grave error in interfering in the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court taking cognizance against the respondent. 3. Per contra, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondent contends that as per the allegations of the F .l.R., the complainant did not dispute the signatures on the sale deed. He submits that the highest case of the complainant in the report was that the accused interpolated in the measurement of the land in the sale deed and thereby increased the land sold from 1 bigha 2 biswas to 2 bigha 12 biswas. Learned counsel contends that a bare perusal of the document reveals that no cutting or interpolations exist in the document. Thus, he submits that the order passed by the Revisional Court does not call for any interference. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the record, it is evidence that the learned Revisional Court has misread the allegations levelled in the complaint. The complainant's specific case in the complaint was that the accused forged his signatures on the sale deed and thereafter usurped the land measuring 2 bighas and 12 biswas. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the record, it is evidence that the learned Revisional Court has misread the allegations levelled in the complaint. The complainant's specific case in the complaint was that the accused forged his signatures on the sale deed and thereafter usurped the land measuring 2 bighas and 12 biswas. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report regarding the signatures on the disputed document is clear to the effect that the signatures on the disputed document is clear to the effect that the signatures purported to have been appended by the complainant on the document are different from his specimen signatures. The effect of non-procurement of admitted signature of the complainant for the contemporary period is a permissible and logical defence available to the accused which he is entitled to raise at the trial. However, simply because the admitted signatures of the complainant of the contemporary period coinciding with the date of execution of the document were not procured by the I.O. that by itself cannot be a ground to interfere with the order taking cognizance. 5. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The order 14.7.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions judge (F.T.) Rajsamand is hereby quashed and the order dated 20/11.2006 passed by the learned C.J.M. Rajsamand is restored. Record be sent back.Petition allowed. *******