KRISHAN GOPAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by preferring this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding of Criminal Case No.3397/2012 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior, against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed on behalf of Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma, Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi for mutation with regard to survey Nos.943, 944, 946, 952 and 953 situated at village Mehra, on the basis of registered sale-deed executed by Babusingh in their favour. In support of the application, affidavit of Dr. Krishnagopal sharma, which was notarized by Notary R.D.Sharma and identified by Advocate Navnidhi Parharya, was filed alongwith the Vakalatnama of Shri Navnidhi Parharya Advocate. The case was registered as case No.119/07-08/A-6 (new No.222/2010-2011/A-6). The advertisement was issued on the application. After the publication of advertisement, an application was filed by counsel Shri Raju Sharma on behalf of Smt. Bharti Deshwal alleging that Smt. Bharti Deshwal has neither purchased the aforesaid land, nor she has filed any application or Vakalatnama and her signature has been forged on the application. Thereafter, petitioner Krishgopal Sharma has filed an application alleging that he has not signed the application for mutation, affidavit and Vakalatnama and it is prayed that the application be dismissed. On the basis of the application of the petitioner, the application for mutation was dismissed, however, taking into consideration that application has been filed after forging the signature, enquiry was held. During enquiry, it was found that in the application for mutation and Vakalatnama, the signatures of Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi are forged. During enquiry, the petitioner was also summoned. His statement was recorded and he deposed that he never appeared before Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary, to execute the affidavit and he has also not signed the affidavit and Vakalatnama. The statement of Shri Navnidhi Parharya was also recorded in which he has stated that Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma has contacted him and asked him to file the mutation proceeding. Krishnagopal Sharma also showed him registered sale-deed and other documents. Thereafter, he has submitted the application. Statement of Shri R.D.Sharma, Notary, was also recorded who has stated that he has notarized the affidavit of Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma. On the basis of the enquiry, it was found that Dr. Krishnagopal Sharma has filed the application forging the signatures of Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi, therefore, an order was passed, on the basis of which a complaint has been filed before the CJM, Gwalior, against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and perverse. The signature of the petitioner has been forged on the application filed before the Tahsildar. The petitioner has complained before the Tahsildar that his signatures were forged on the application, affidavit and Vakalatnama, but enquiry was conducted by the Patwari on the orders of Tahsildar only in respect of signatures of Smt. Bharti Deshwal and Smt. Preeti Tripathi. It is further submitted that Tahsildar is not an expert to check the forged signatures. It is also submitted that Court of Tahsildar is not a Court. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing on the report of Patwari. No standard signature of the petitioner has been taken to compare the alleged signatures. There is no material to show that alleged signatures were made by the petitioner. It is further submitted that Tahsildar himself has conducted an enquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., but the petitioner has never been served with the copy of the charge-sheet or show cause notice regarding the same. The petitioner was not informed that his statement is being recorded in pursuance of any enquiry regarding the forged signatures. The petitioner was never informed that enquiry is going on against him. The complaint on the face of it is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is prayed that order passed by the Tahsildar dated 26.3.2012 (Annexure A-1) and criminal complaint instituted against the petitioner (Annexure A-2) and consequently the proceeding before the learned JMFC be quashed.