MANJUBEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Criminal Revision Application under section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner - original complainant challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.1074 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which the trial court rejected the application preferred by the petitioner observing that no complaint filed before the Court for committal of offence for which the Court take cognizance or issue a direction for investigation to the police and it is misinterpretation on the part of the petitioner regrading principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the prayer prayed by the petitioner is not according to law and hence the same cannot be granted and so the present the is not maintainable and it is rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is as under : Land bearing Survey Nos.179, 80 and 229 of village Katargam, Surat were owned and occupied by the father of the petitioner. After death of her father, accused persons got revenue entry No.8219 mutated in the revenue record by creating forged documents and specifically an agreement dated 18.03.1993 in the name of the petitioner by putting forged signatures of the petitioner, to show that the petitioner has waived her right from such lands and also made a bogus statement before the revenue authority and thereby the name of the petitioner came to be deleted from the revenue record of such lands and thereby the accused have committed serious and cognizable offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr.Percy Kavina, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that merely because the petitioner has initiated civil proceedings, the police has not entertained the complaint of the petitioner which is highly improbable and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is contended that police has not even recovered the forged document or its copy from the accused persons. The accused persons have also not produced such documents before the police or before the Civil Court in the suit proceedings and a copy is not given to the petitioner despite the notices issued by the petitioner. Not only that, the accused persons have not even replied to the notices issued by the petitioner. It is contended that the court below erred in not considering the vital issue of non-recovery of the disputed document by the investigating agency despite undertaking given by the accused to produce the same. The court below erred in not considering the fact that the investigating agency has not tried to obtain revenue record of revenue entry No.8219 from the office of the Mamlatdar except writing of a letter. It is contended that the court below failed to appreciate the fact that in a case of forgery, the bare minimum requirement is to recover the disputed document from the accused persons and to get the signatures on such document be verified, while here in the present case, the investigating officer has not taken pain to recover the disputed document, which cannot be permitted.