HARNAM SINGH Vs. M.P.SINGH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harnam Singh (hereinafter referred as appellant) has preferred the present appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging correctness of the order dated 14.08.2008 of learned Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No.CS/154/2004 "Mohinder Pal Singh and anr. Vs. Harnam Singh", by which application moved by him under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) The respondents- Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni and Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni had filed civil suit No.49/1997 for Mandatory Injunction and Damages through attorney Mohinder Pal Singh Anand against the appellant in this Court. The appellant filed written statement. Replication bearing their signatures was filed by the respondents. The appellant filed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (IA No.8597/2000) alleging that Narinder Pal Kaur's signatures on the replication were forged. Subsequently, he moved another application being (IA No.2982/2002) for expeditious disposal of his earlier IA No.8597/2000. During the proceedings, respondent No.2 Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni was asked to file affidavit indicating whether or not, she had put her signatures on the replication. She filed an affidavit indicating that the replication contained her signatures. Vide order dated 17.12.2002, this Court disposed of both the applications IA Nos.8597/2000 and 2982/2002 taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni. It was further observed that the said affidavit was taken on record subject to cross-examination by the present appellant.

(3.) Due to change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the suit in question was transferred to Tis Hazari Courts. Respondent No.2- Narender Pal Kaur did not appear as a witness and the Trial Court closed the respondents? evidence. The appellant moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to initiate an enquiry against the respondents and to send relevant documents on which respondent No.2's signatures were forged for comparison to CFSL. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned order dismissed the application. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal.