SHARIF KHAN Vs. ARUN KUMAR SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code . arising out of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.l against the petitioner under sections 420/464/468/471/474 Indian Penal Code It appears that the complaint has its origin in the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.l relating to property No.C-21, Duggal Farm Khanpur Extension, New Delhi. The petitioner asserts that he is a tenant of the said property while respondent No.l owner thereof disputes this position and claims that the petitioner was merely a licensee of a small portion of the property in question about which civil litigation is pending between the parties.

(2.) The first respondent on July 4, 1988 filed a complaint against the petitioner under sections 420/464/468/471/474 Indian Penal Code in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi. The complainant appears to have set up the following case before the trial Court :

(3.) "The petitioner with a view to creating false and fabricated evidence and proof regarding his illegal occupation in the aforesaid house moved an application before the Rationing Department for obtaining a Ration Card in his name and gave his residential address as C-21, Duggal Farm Khanpur Extension, New Delhi. On the said application the petitioner forged the signatures of the first respondent and also forged an endorsement thereon purporting to be by him to the effect that he had no objection to the issue of a Ration Card in favour of the petitioner. In fact the first respondent did not sign the application nor made any endorsement thereon. On the basis of the forged signatures and the endorsement, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining a Ration Card which has now been converted into a new ration card. The first respondent had informed the Food & Supplies Department about the forgery committed by the petitioner but no action has been taken by the Department in this regard. The petitioner forged the signatgures of the first respondent with the intention to create proof of his stay in the premises in question.