DEENANATH Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) A Civil Suit No.34 -A/2007 was filed in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Kurwai. After service of notice, the complainant/defendant/petitioner appeared. Documents supplied to the complainant/defendant by the plaintiff/ respondent include a photocopy of sale deed. On perusal of the photo -copy of the sale deed, it was found that in the sale deed the name of the father of the vendor and name of father of vendee has been tampered. The accused/ respondents were trying to adversely influence the interest of the complainant/ petitioner. In the complaint, the petitioner Deenanath and his witnesses Gudda, Puran and Deepak Agrawal were examined as PW1 to P W4. Learned JMFC in his order dated 10.11.2008 refused to take cognizance on the complaint. Therefore, complainant filed a criminal revision numbered as 237/2008 and was decided by Third ASJ, Vidisha vide order dated 28.3.2009. He upheld the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this, the complainant has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC and assailed the impugned orders and requested to set aside the impugned orders and to direct the JMFC to register the complaint case against the respondents No. 1 and 2/accused persons. The petitioner has pleaded that the learned Court below dismissed the case on the ground that photo -copy has been produced but the documents produced before the Court stating it to be true and correct. Copy of original was supplied by the accused persons which reflect that change in the names of father in both the cases, therefore forgery has been committed in the document. Just because photo -copy has been filed does not excludes the respondent from the criminal liability. By virtue of documentary proof fraud has been committed. Therefore, even though forgery has been committed in the photocopy, the respondents are liable.