SHATRUGHAN MAKHIJA Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') filed by the applicants, Shatrughan Makhija and Arjundas Makhija to set aside the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Bhanupratappur, Distt. U.B. Kanker in Criminal Revision No. 01/2009 the petitioners have further prayed for discharge of the applicants from the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts involved in this case are that one Kishanchand Makhija, through his power of attorney holder, Ramchand lodged a report of the Station Officer, Bhanupratappur, Distt. U.B. Kanker, inter-alia making a complaint that the said Kishanchand is owner of land bearing kh. No. 29 admeasuring 20 x 35 sq. ft., kh. No. 29 ad-measuring 24 x 11 = 264 sq. ft., part of kh. No. 29 ad-measuring 0.01/4 decimals, kh. No. 29 ad-measuring 12 x 46 = 552 sq. ft. and kh. No. 61/1 bearing plot No. 39 of 0.05 decimal. The complainant further reports that his nephew Shatrughan S/o. Arjundas, resident of Bhanupratappur prepared fabricated & false document and impersonated Kishanchand and filed application before the Tahsildar, Bhanupratappur and scribed false signature and thereby got the land transferred in his name by order of Tahsildar. The complainant further submits that he scribed his signature in Sindhi but on application signature were made in Hindi, He further complained that he is not able to move freely after his disability. The complainant further says that when he came to know about the falsity on 14.08.2006, he obtain the certified copy from the Tahsil Office, Bhanupratappur, wherein forgery came to tore. The complainant further says that before making such complaint, the applicants had obtained some signature in some paper on the pretext to get the agency of BSNL line and the complainant, Kishanchand believed them and signed the papers. The applicant further says that on repeated asking, no satisfactory answer was given by these applicants and ultimately it was revealed that his nephew Shatrughan by playing fraud, fabricated the document and committed forgery in the Court of Tahsildar and got the name mutated.

(2.) On the basis of such complaint, initially FIR was registered on 23.11.2006 and after investigation the Police had filed the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Camp Bhanupratappur. During the course of trial, charges were framed against these applicants under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Perusal of charge-sheet filed in this case reflects that the charge-sheet was confined to playing forgery by the applicants by putting false signature by preparing false documents. The charge-sheet further purports that the applicants in furtherance of common object prayed the fraud and fabricated document before the Tahsildar and got the land mutated in their name.

(3.) After framing of the charges, the applicants in this case had challenged such framing of charges by way of revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, Distt. U.B. Kanker. The applicants advanced the argument that under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., the cognizance taken by the Court was bad. For the shake of brevity the Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is reproduced here in below.