PURNA CHANDRA PATRA Vs. DASHARATH PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT in I.C.C. No. 296 of 1990 presently pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Balasore'(originally instituted in the Court of S.D.J.M., Balasore) has prayed for interfering with the order dated 16.9.1994 of the trial Court and the judgment dated 25.11.1995 of the Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Revision No. 62 of 1994. The two accused persons who were discharged under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') as per the impugned order are the opposite parties 1 and 2 in this application under Section 482 of the Code.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that till the stage of Rent Camp he was the sole recorded tenant of three plots corresponding to Major Settlement Plot Nos. 490, 546 and 1801, totally measuring Ac. 2.11 decimals. The complainant being in Government service, remains outside his native place, and taking advantage of that, as alleged, the opposite party members, who are his brothers, with the son of opposite party No. 1, viz. Arun Kumar Patra, forged the signature of the petitioner in an application presented before the Settlement Officer for recording of the said land jointly in the name of the complainant and the opposite party members. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party members who are his elder brothers and accused Arun who is his nephew made the conspiracy with a Moharir and some staff in the Settlement Office and in furtherance of that accused Arun forged the signature of the petitoner in the application as well as in the notice issued from the office of the Settlement Officer so as to get that land recorded jointly. Though the Moharir and Amin in the Settlement Office were added as accused Nos. 4 and 5 but after recording the initial statement of the complainant while taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 419/465/468, I.P.C. learned Magistrate declined to issue process against the said two persons on the ground that their act is covered by the direction issued by their superior officer. Therefore, the said two persons are no more accused persons in the criminal proceeding.

(3.) WHILE discharging the opposite parties under Sub section (1) of Section 245 of the Code, learned Magistrate has recorded the reason that they did not forge the signature. Learned Sessions Judge after making a synopsis of the facts involved, did not appropriately examined the point canvassed by the petitioner and concurred with the impugned order of learned Magistrate.