KULDEEP KAPOOR Vs. SUSANTA SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the defendant under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) against the plaintiff Kuldeep Kapoor and his accomplices viz. Girdhari Lal, Ashok Kapoor and Ms. Priya Kapoor. This application has been filed in the above suit during its pendency. According to the defendant after putting his signatures on the agreement to sell, he had left the blanks unfilled in Clauses 1 and 2 of the said agreement. In Clause 4 of the said agreement, he had put signatures just above the said clause and this was done to validate a correction i.e. addition of the letter 'd' in the word 'mature'. The two witnesses attested this document. According to the applicant, the copy of the receipt dated 20th October, 2004 on which the plaintiff has based his suit, is a forged document. Photo copy of the agreement as well as the original receipt had been placed on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively. The plaintiff and his accomplices not only tampered the receipt by erasing typed word 'cash' and written the same in hand but also the typed figure of Rs. 30,000/- and added in hand a figure of Rs. 2 lacs. Thus according to the applicant, Kuldeep Kapoor, Girdhari Lal and Ashok Kapoor have fabricated, tampered and forged the document with an intention to use the same in Court as evidence or otherwise. It is also stated that the plaintiff and his witness Girdhari Lal have intentionally given their incorrect addresses before the Court on affidavit and have therefore made false statement before the Court during judicial proceedings. The agreement and receipt were in possession of the plaintiff and his accomplices, as such they are liable to be prosecuted under Sections 191, 192 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under Sections 193,196 and 200 of the Code for forgery of documents and the offences under Sections 463, 464 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 465 of the Code and for the offences under Sections 469 and 470 of the Code punishable under Section 471 of the Code. On this premise, it is prayed that the Court may direct initiation of appropriate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff and his accomplices as aforenoticed.

(2.) Notice of this application was issued to the plaintiff who filed a reply. In the reply filed by the plaintiff, some of the paragraphs were denied as matter of record. While in others, the averments made in the application were denied and it was stated that the averments are false, frivolous and afterthought of the defendant. It was stated that the replying respondents (in the application) have no concern or relation with the plaintiff and there is no question of their being accomplices of the plaintiff. It was denied that the receipt dated 20th October, 2004 has ever been tampered with by the plaintiff and his accomplices/witnesses and the original typed figure of Rs. 30,0007- was ever erased and substituted by Rs. 2 lacs by the replying respondents in that application. According to them, the applicant has misled the Court and no proceeding under various sections referred to in the application can be initiated against the said respondents. In addition to this, a preliminary objection was also taken stating that the application has been filed with ulterior motives to pressurise the plaintiff, without any rhyme and reason. The application has been filed for oblique motive and the same should be dismissed. Rejoinder to this reply was filed by the defendant, who reiterated the averments made in the application with more emphasis in relation to the facts of the case.

(3.) Though no specific plea has been raised in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, but the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff (respondents in the application) contended that the present application is also not maintainable for the reason that the documents have been forged, if at all, prior to commencement of the judicial proceedings before the Court and, as such, the same cannot fall within the ambit and scope of Section 340, Cr.P.C. While raising this argument, he relied upon a Full Bench judgment of the Panjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harbans Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 P&H 19 and judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, 118 (2005) DLT 329 (SC)=III (2005) SLT 154=II (2005) CCR 16 (SC)=2005(2) Crimes 11 (SC), Sachidanand Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr., III (1998) SLT 90=1 (1998) CCR 297 (SC)=1998 (1) JT 370 SC. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant contended that it is a case of apparent forgery, tampering and making false statement by way of evidence and filing false affidavit in Court and it would be immaterial that the documents were forged prior or during the course of judicial proceedings before the Court. In alternative, it is contended that the documents in the present case might have been forged or tampered with after institution of the suit and this itself being a matter of controversy, can only be examined by the Court of competent jurisdiction with the permission or under the directions of this Court. In support of this argument, he relied upon Section 195 of the Code read with Section 340, Cr.P.C and the very two judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the plaintiff in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (supra) and Sachidanand Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr (supra).