S AMRIK SINGH LYALLPURI Vs. RAVI DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, the respondent herein, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, against the petitioner, Sardar Amrik Singh Lyallpuri, and two others, namely, Shri Ram Singh and Shri Niranjan Das, alleging that they had committed offences under sections 219, 416, 417, 467, 471 and 472 read with sections 34 and 107 IPC. It was stated in the complaint that Niranjan Das had filed a suit against Ravi Dutt Sharma in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, claiming possession of the suit property under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and that although defendant Ravi Dutt Sharma had not been served with the suit notice, Sardar Amrik Singh Lyallpuri had engaged an Advocate, Shri Harbaksh Snigh, representing to the said advocate that he was Ravi Dutt Sharma, the defendant in the suit. A. Vakalatnama purporting to have been signed by Ravi Dutt Sharma was filed by Shri Harbaksh Singh, Advocate, and a written statement-also purporting to have been signed by Ravi Dutt Sharma was also filed by the said advocate in the suit. The complainant Ravi Dutt Sharma, on coming to know of the above faces, inspected the suit records and discovered that a false endorsement had been made by the Process Server Rain Singh on the summons issued to the defendant to the effect that the defendant had refused to accept the summons. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on his file and proceeded to examine the complainant Ravi Dutt Sharma and Shri Harbaksh Singh, Advocate, on oath. After thus recording their statements, the learned Magistrate passed the following order :-

(2.) All the contentions that had been urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge were also urged before me on behalf of the petitioner. There is hardly any merit in the first three contentions mentioned above. According to the complaint filed by Ravi Dutt Sharma, the Vakalatnama and the written statement which were filed by Sardar Harbaksh Singh Advocate in the suit had been forged in Delhi and were also filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, had, therefore the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the statements made by the complainant as well as Sardar Harbaksh Singh before the learned Magistrate disclosed a prima jacie case against the petitioner under sections 468 and 471 IPC. The order of the learned Magistrate which has been reproduced above is a speaking order and it shows that it was passed after due application of mind by the learned Magistrate. The fourth contntion, however, requires serious consideration.

(3.) The Vakalatnama and the written statement which are alleged to be forged documents were documents which were produced in a proceeding in a court. However, only one of the persons who were made accused in the case filed by the complainant, namely, Shri Niranjan Das, was a party to the said suit. The other two accused, namely, the petitioner Amrik Singh Lyallpuri and Ram Singh, were not parties to the said suit. The learned Magistrate issued summons only against the petitioner Sardar Amrik Singh who was not a party to the said suit. The question for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate was precluded from taking cognizance of the case by virtue of section 195(l)(c) Cr. P.C. which reads as follows :-