AVTAR SINGH Vs. SAT PAL SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application is allowed as prayed for.

(2.) Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 17.5.2010 (P.3) passed by the ld. JMIC, Jalandhar whereby application dated 10.5.2010 (P.2) filed by the petitioner-complainant for permitting the hand-writing expert for comparison of the signatures of accused-respondent No. 1 with the second copy of the sale deed dated 28.7.1989 alleged to have been forged by respondent Nos. 1 to 3-accused has been dismissed.

(3.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner Avtar Singh and respondent No. 1 Satpal Singh are brothers. A complaint was filed by the petitioner on 10.4.1996 under Sections 420/463/468/120B/34 IPC against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that they have conspired together and respondent No. 1-Satpal Singh had fraudulently got registered a sale deed from the father of the petitioner, namely, Dan Singh after two years of his death. On earlier occasions, petitioner-complainant had moved an application for obtaining the signatures of respondent No. 1-accused Satpal Singh and respondent No. 3-Roshan Lal for comparing the same with second copy of the alleged forged sale deed dated 28.7.1989, as the original was in possession of Satpal. Application was dismissed by the ld. JMIC, Jalandhar vide order dated 12.5.2007. Petitioner filed a revision before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.1.2009 (P.1) and order dated 12.5.2007 was set aside primarily on the basis that the examination of the forged sale deed was a basic document on which the petitioner-complainant was relying and such comparison was necessary for just and fair disposal of the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner-complainant filed an application on 20.5.2009 before the ld. Trial Court for permitting Fateh Chand Sharma-handwriting expert to take signatures of the accused Satpal Singh and Roshan Singh for comparing the same with the second copy of the sale deed and the same was allowed by the court. Accordingly, Fateh Chand Sharma took the photograph of the signatures of Satpal Singh and Roshan Singh in the presence of the petitioner-complainant and thereafter submitted his report dated 4.6.2009 after comparing it with the copy of the sale deed supplied by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant examined Fateh Chand Sharma as CW5 wherein he deposed that he had compared the questioned signatures of the accused persons present on the certified copy of the sale deed and he has seen the original sale deed produced by the Clerk of the Tehsil Office, Jalandhar. Report dated 4.6.2009 was tendered in evidence as Ex.CW5/B and that of his examination-in-chief as CW5/C. Said witness was also cross examined at length by the ld. Defence counsel and thereafter the complainant closed his evidence and the case was adjourned for recording the statement of the accused.