RAM KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel.

(2.) On December 23, 1983, the opposite party No. 2 brought a complaint in writing against the applicants in the Court of the Munsif - Magistrate Gyanpur district Varanasi, contending, in brief; that on November 28, 1983, the applicants bad, in furtherance of common intention, got a deed of sale executed in favour of Ram Kishore (applicant No. 1) by Amar Nath (applicant No. 3) representing, however, that the executant is the complainant (Shyam Kishore alias Kishori Lal). The contention is that the complainant did not, in fact, execute the deed in question and that Amar Nath has impersonated for the complainant in this respect. Subsequent to the statement recorded under sections 200/202 Code of Criminal Procedure the accused were summoned for the offence under sections 419, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The statement of the complainant under section 244 of the Code has also been recorded. An application was made from the side of the complainant in the trial Court under section 294(1) of the Code. Section 294(1) provides that where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the accused or his counsel shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of such document. The complainant had got summoned, from the office of the Sub-Registrar, the deed of sale impugned dated November 28, 1983. The application was made in respect of this document. To this there was objection raised from the side of the accused. The objection has been overruled by order of the court below dated August 29, 1985. Aggrieved the accused-applicants have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code.

(3.) Learned counsel contends that the Munsif-Magistrate could not take cognizance in view of section 195(1)(b)Qi) of the Code since there is a shit instituted by the complainant in the civil court for the cancellation of the deed of sale dated November 28, 1983. It may not be doubted that though the offence under sections 419, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code is not specifically referred to in section 195(1)(b)Qi), these are covered in view of the reference made therein to the offence described in section 463 of the Indian Penal Code and since the offence under these sections is said to arise from the same transaction vide State of Karnataka v. Hamareddy Vermareddy, Smt. Maharaji and others v. Rama Shanker and another, Ram Pal Singh v. State of UP. and others and Gopalkrishna Menon and another v. D. Raja Reddy and another.