M S YADAV Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred against an order dated 30th November, 2009 passed by the learned ASJ Rohini whereby he allowed the revision filed by respondents against the order dated 7th June, 2007 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and set aside the order of learned MM summoning the respondents.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on 26th November, 1998 alleging that the photocopy of the compromise filed in complaint case No. 82/1 by the police was a forged document and he had not entered into any such compromise with the opposite side and action should be taken against the IO/SHO and the accused persons for forging the photocopy of the compromise. No action was taken on this application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.. He thereafter filed a complaint case making respondent and others as accused, for registration of FIR against them under Section 465/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC alleging that the compromise placed on the record was a forged document. On this complaint of the petitioner, the learned MM summoned the respondents under Section 465/468/471 IPC and under Section 166/167 read with Section 120-B IPC vide his order dated 7th June, 2007.

(3.) The learned ASJ before whom the revision was filed observed that the only evidence led by the petitioner in this case against the respondents was his own statement and in his statement regarding offence alleged in the complaint he stated that the photocopy of the compromise did not bear his signature and it was concocted and fabricated by respondents and by Om Prakash (SHO) in collusion with other accused persons. The original of this was not produced in the Court by the IO despite directions given by the MM nor did the SHO produce this original document. The learned ASJ observed that the SI Rohit, who was the IO of the case, had already died. Mark A which was filed in the Court was only a photocopy; the original of the same was not traceable. This original was not in custody of the respondents neither there was any evidence that this document Mark A was in the handwriting of respondent Om Prakash. Om Prakash was not even a witness to Mark A. Mark A bore signatures of B.L.Madan and Mukesh, and SI Rohit (deceased) had attested the same. The learned ASJ observed that a person is said to have forged a document if he made false document with intent to damage or cause injury to the public or to any other person. In the present case there was no evidence that any part of this document Mark A; was even prepared by the respondents. He therefore observed that there was not sufficient evidence before the learned MM to summon the accused persons under Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC which required that a document must be made with intent to cheat or to fraudulently induce the victim to deliver some property. Since there was no evidence that this document was forged by any one of the respondents or it was in the knowledge of the respondents that it was a forged document, offence under Section 471 IPC was not made out, he therefore allowed the revision and set aside the summoning order.