C.P. KHANNA Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINT No. 177 of 2004 was instituted by Rajeev Kumar Agarwal (complainant) against Mega Motors and others (opposite parties) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital. The judgment was rendered in the said complaint on 08.06.2006. The complaint filed by the complainant Rajeev Kumar was dismissed. The present applicant was opposite party No. 1 in the said complaint (before the Consumer Forum). Thereafter a private complaint case bearing Criminal Case No. 1370 of 2008, captioned as Rajeev Kumar v. C.P. Khanna and two others, was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, Nainital, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC in March, 2008. In the said complaint, it was averred by the complainant that he purchased TATA 207 (D1) from M/s. Tata Motors Limited, New Delhi. It was stated in paragraph 7 of the complaint that when the complaint was instituted by the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital, the opposite parties submitted their written statements. The documents relating to the loan of the vehicle were also presented along with the written statement. The signatures of the complainant Rajeev Kumar and his witness (es) were forged on the said documents. The objections to this effect were raised before the Consumer Forum at Nainital. The matter was scrutinized by the Consumer Forum, who came to the finding that the signatures of Rajeev Kumar and his witness Anup Chawla on the loan agreement were forged. The Consumer Forum did not institute any complaint against the persons, who committed forgery in the loan document.

(2.) THE question is - as to who committed forgery in loan document? Whether it was accused No. 1 or whether they were accused Nos. 2 to 4? List of the documents purported to have been filed on behalf of the accused persons is enclosed as annexure No. 10 to the C -482 Petition. Item No. 9 in the list of documents goes to indicate that the objections, written statement along with the loan agreement paper were submitted on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 and not by accused No. 1/the applicant in the instant petition.

(3.) HON 'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Those principles can be summarised as under: