A PAFEEQ AHMED SAHIB Vs. ISTIAQ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C. C. No. 5606 of 1973, in the court of the VIII Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras. That case is a case for the alleged offences of forgery and making use of a forged document in certain rent control proceedings and the respondent herein (tenant) is the complainant therein. His case is that on 7-3-1968, the petitioner-landlord obtained his signature in a blank sheet of paper, that subsequently he brought into existence the recitals in that sheet to show as though the respondent was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1563. 77 and subsequently made use of this document In the proceedings for eviction. The petitioner contends that Section 195 (1), Criminal Procedure Code is a bar for the present proceedings because the document in question, even according to the respondent, was used in proceedings in court and that it is that court which should come forward with a complaint for offences of forgery etc.

(2.) THEREFORE, the short point for determination is, whether the proceedings are sustainable without a complaint by Court as contemplated by Section 195 (1), Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) EX. P-10 is the letter. The respondent admits his signature in it. He contends that the petitioner-landlord obtained his signature in a blank sheet stating that it was for getting an acknowledgement of the arrears of electricity charges. This document recites that the respondent was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1563. 77. This was put to the respondent when he was in the witness-box in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller held that Ex. P-10 is a genuine document executed by the respondent and this document established clearly that the respondent was in huge arrears of rent and that, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. With this finding, he ordered eviction. This was on 24-9-1970. The respondent tenant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority (IV Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras ). The appellate authority set aside the order of eviction and observed that Ex. P-10 cannot be taken as a genuine document. This was on 15-9-1971. The present complaint was filed by the respondent on 30-3-1973, nearly 1 1/2 years after the judgment of the appellate authority. On the question as to whether Ex. P-10 is a forged document or a genuine one, except the evidence of the complainant and the respondent, there is no other evidence in the case to show either way. It is a case of oath against oath. The Rent Controller has held that Ex. P-10 is a genuine document and the appellate authority has held that it is otherwise. Whether in such circumstances, the complainant could satisfactorily prove his case of forgery beyond doubt is itself doubtful matter. But this is a question germane to the issues now arising for consideration in this case. The fact remains that the respondent-complainant had come forward with the present complaint of forgery 1 1/2 years after the finding given by the appellate Court. The fact that he delayed for such a long time is yet another circumstance, which will have to be taken into account for assessing the genuineness or otherwise of the document Ex. P-10. We are not concerned at this stage with that aspect of the matter also.