Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 870 (MP)

Deenanath v. Santosh Kumar

2015-08-20

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 2. A Civil Suit No.34-A/2007 was filed in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Kurwai. After service of notice, the complainant/defendant/petitioner appeared. Documents supplied to the complainant/defendant by the plaintiff/respondent include a photocopy of sale deed. On perusal of the photo-copy of the sale deed, it was found that in the sale deed the name of the father of the vendor and name of father of vendee has been tampered. The accused/ respondents were trying to adversely influence the interest of the complainant/petitioner. In the complaint, the petitioner Deenanath and his witnesses Gudda, Puran and Deepak Agrawal were examined as PW1 to PW4. Learned JMFC in his order dated 10.11.2008 refused to take cognizance on the complaint. Therefore, complainant filed a criminal revision numbered as 237/2008 and was decided by Third ASJ, Vidisha vide order dated 28.3.2009. He upheld the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC. 3. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC and assailed the impugned orders and requested to set aside the impugned orders and to direct the JMFC to register the complaint case against the respondents No.1 and 2/accused persons. The petitioner has pleaded that the learned Court below dismissed the case on the ground that photo-copy has been produced but the documents produced before the Court stating it to be true and correct. Copy of original was supplied by the accused persons which reflect that change in the names of father in both the cases, therefore forgery has been committed in the document. Just because photo-copy has been filed does not excludes the respondent from the criminal liability. By virtue of documentary proof fraud has been committed. Therefore, even though forgery has been committed in the photocopy, the respondents are liable. 4. Per contra, the respondents No.1 and 2 vehemently denied the averments and stated that there has been no forgery in the documents. It is argued that in the order impugned, learned JMFC has clearly stated that PW4 Deepak Agrawal has stated that the original document is lying with the Office of Registrar and there is no such manipulation. PW1 Deenanath, PW2 Gudda and PW3 Puran Singh have also told that the document in the Office of Registrar has not been tampered with. It is argued that in the order impugned, learned JMFC has clearly stated that PW4 Deepak Agrawal has stated that the original document is lying with the Office of Registrar and there is no such manipulation. PW1 Deenanath, PW2 Gudda and PW3 Puran Singh have also told that the document in the Office of Registrar has not been tampered with. 5. Further, Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 argued that by the registered sale deed in which is allegedly tampered, does not entail the accused respondents to any advantage or any wrongful gain. It is also argued that if at all such document has been received by the complainant/ petitioner it would be difficult to say that, who has manipulated the same. Because, the document is not the original document on which respondent/accused persons relied upon. When the original document is not produced and no such tamper has been made in the original document, as admitted by the complainant/petitioner and its witnesses, it could not be said that such manipulation is committed by the respondent/ accused persons. 6. On perusal of the record, it is found that the sale deed dated 24.6.1996 was subject the matter of dispute. Respondent No.2 Santosh, s/o Mishrilal supplied notice to the petitioner along with copy of the same, in which Santosh Kumar s/o Mishrilal has been shown as the purchaser and Santosh Kumar s/o Gulab Chand has been shown as a witness. In the civil suit, the complainant/ petitioner was the defendant whereas the respondent No.2/accused was the plaintiff. After receiving the true copy from the Office of Registrar, Vidisha, the defendant/ petitioner came to know that the accused persons conspired to manipulate in the photo-copy of sale deed and committed forgery. 7. The statements of PW1 Deenanath, PW2 Gudda, PW3 Puran Singh and PW4 Deepak Agrawal attain importance so far as the sale deed is concerned. All of them say that, the original document in the Office of Registrar office has no such manipulation. 8. 7. The statements of PW1 Deenanath, PW2 Gudda, PW3 Puran Singh and PW4 Deepak Agrawal attain importance so far as the sale deed is concerned. All of them say that, the original document in the Office of Registrar office has no such manipulation. 8. To bring home an offence under section 467 of the CrPC the prosecution has to prove all the elements required to be proved for offence under section 465 of IPC, which includes the making of false document or part of it and such making should be with intent to cause damage or injury to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to enter into express or implied contract or to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. Next, the prosecution is to prove further that the document forged is one of the kinds mentioned in section 467 IPC vi. (a) valuable security, (b) a Will, (c) an authority to adopt son and (d) an authority which purports to authorize any person to make or transfer any valuable security or to receive principal etc. The photo-copy, if at all manipulated and supplied to complainant/petitioner does not cover a document in the above category. 9. Besides, when the photocopy was supplied to the defendant/complainant/petitioner it was actually manipulated by the accused/respondent No.2 or it was tempered by one else, cannot be ascertained for sure. The document passed through so many hands before it reached defendant/complainant/petitioner. Hence, who has actually tampered it by changing the name of the father cannot be ascertained. 10. It is to be remembered here that the original sale deed and sale deed lying in the Office of Registrar is not tampered with. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, concurrent findings of the Courts below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, this petition sans merit and is, therefore, dismissed. VKB