BHAGWAN DAS Vs. CHHOTELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by order dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli in criminal revision No. 50/2012 whereby he affirmed the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Singrauli in unregistered case of 2004, thereby private complaint filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that petitioner has filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Singrauli under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC against the respondents. Learned Magistrate has dismissed the aforesaid private complaint. After considering the facts of the case and reached to the conclusion that complaint was filed by Dadu, who said to have been deceased and Devan, father of respondents No. 1 and 2, who said to have been committed the forgery, have not been made party to the private complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, applicant filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, but Additional Sessions Judge, Baidan dismissed the aforesaid revision petition after making the observation that petition filed by the applicant/complainant was not tenable under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. He further observed that matter was of civil nature and trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the order of dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., hence this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that trial Court as well as Revisional Court have committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that view taken by the revisional Court that complaint was not tenable due to the bar of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. It is not correct because the alleged forgery has not been committed during the time when the document was in Court (custodia legis). He placed reliance on : AIR 2005 SC 2119 (1), Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported and justified the order passed by the courts below and further submitted that it is a case of purely of civil nature, therefore, no offence has been made out from the application made in the private complaint. He placed reliance on : (2009) 7 SCC 495, Devendra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another and prays for dismissal of the petition.