KRISHAN DEV Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against an order made by Shri C. G. Suri the then District Judge, Delhi, (now Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. G. Suri of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents that no such appeal was competent under section 476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 is the landlord while the petitioner is his tenant in respect of a portion of the building in East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is also a tenant of respondent No. 1 in respect of another portion of the property. There was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 aut the petitioner's tenancy in respect of a barsati on the terrace of the building. Respondent No. I who challenged the right of the petitioner to use and occupy the said barsati instituted a suit for grant of a permanent injunction against the petitioner in the Court of a Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, valuing the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 130.00 During the course of the trial both the respondents appeared as witnesses against the petitioner. They also filed certain affidavits in support of an application for grant of a temporary injunction. Respondent No. 1 also filed a rent note allegedly executed by respondent No. 2 in his favour on 5-5-1963. The said rent note which had already been placed on file was duly proved by respondent No. 2 when he appeared as a witness and was marked Exhibit P2. On 18-4-1966 one other document which purported to be a schedule to Exhibit P2 and was claimed to have been executed on the same date i.e. 5-5-1963, was also produced and was marked Exhibit P2/A.

(3.) During the course of the trial of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, for filing a complaint against the respondents for offences under sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 and also refused to file a complaint against the respondents although it was held that the documents Exhibits P2 and P2/A were suspicious and unreliable. Against the decree of the trial Court the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge which was heard by the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge and was dismissed. The Additional Senior Subordinate Judge also refused the petitioner's prayer for filing a complaint against the respondents under sections 193, 196. 199, 200 and 471 IPC.