LAJJARAM SINGH Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In the present revisional application the petitioners have challenged an order dated 28.11.2000 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Hare Street P.S. Case No. 782 of 1998 under sections 120B / 406 / 468 / 471 / 419 / 420 / 423 / 424 / 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present opposite party No. 1, who lodged a petition of complaint before the learned C.M.M., Calcutta on 21.2.98. The said complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Dept., Lalbazar for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.PC, the allegations made in the said complaint is as follows:- The father of the complainant/O.P. No. 1 died a premature death at the age of 30 years, when the present opposite party No. 1 was a child of 7 years. Taking advantage of the helpless condition of the widow and her three children, the present accused / petitioner No. 1 induced the mother of the O.P. No. 1 to entrust him (the accused petitioner) fully with the welfare of the minor children as also of the movable and immovable properties. The present accused/petitioner in this way took the control of the entire movable and immovable properties owned by the deceased father of the complainant/O.P. No. 1. It was further alleged that the petitioner personified himself falsely as the father of the three minor children and to keep them away from other relations, put them in boarding school, where he fraudulently and dishonestly put his name as their father in the school record knowing fully well that he was their maternal uncle. It was alleged that the accused petitioner No. 1 along with other accused persons entered into a deep rooted conspiracy and manufactured false power of attorney containing all false statements, which was beyond the knowledge of the complainant/O.P. No. 1. The accused forged the signature of the complainant in the said document and got it registered with the Notary. The accused No. 5 identified the said forged signature as the signature of the complainant knowing it fully that it was not the signature of the complainant. Accused No. 4 put her signature as a witness in the said forged document. It was alleged that the accused petitioner No. 1 from time to time used the said forged power of attorney as genuine and transferred/sold away huge movable and immovable properties. Since the mother of the complainant/O.P. No. 1 was placed in a mental hospital and the complainant and his brothers were children, the accused petitioner No. 1 who was the maternal uncle of the complainant grabbed the entire property taking advantage of such a helpless situation of the complainant and his brothers.

(3.) After the aforesaid case was registered, the investigation of the case was taken up by the Detective Dept., Lalbazar. While the investigation was in progress, a petition was filed by the I.O of the case with a prayer for production of the said power of attorney dated 18.11.96 in original. Such prayer of the I.O. was allowed by the learned Magistrate and the accused petitioner was directed to produce the said document before the investigating officer of the case. The said order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 28.11.2000 and summons to produce the said document was issued on the same date. It is at this stage the petitioners have come up before this Court in revision challenging such order.