SMT. MOHINDER KAUR Vs. SARDARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Ss. 193, 196, 199, 209, 420, 427 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, was filed against the petitioner Mohinder Kaur and two others before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala. The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 10th June, 1970 on the ground that the Settlement Officer before whom the false documents are alleged to have been used by the accused persons had not filed the complaint under Sec. (sic) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant went in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide his order dated 16th January, 1971 accepted the revision petition and directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the complaint and decide the same on merits, Smt. Mohinder Kaur petitioner approached this Court through this revision petition against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, dated 16th January 1971.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P.S. Mann, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Awasthy, the Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, and Mr. Naubat Singh, the learned District Attorney for the State of Haryana at considerable length, and am of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition Mr. Mann the Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended the following two points before me: -

(3.) As regards the point No. 1, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer is an authority created by the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, who is to decide the claim of the contending parties regarding the dispute in consolidation proceedings. The further contention is that according to the provisions of Sec. 40 of the Act, the Settlement Officer is empowered to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary for the purpose of any business before him as the Settlement Officer and the said person is enjoined by law to speak truth and is bound to appear before him. He, therefore, contends that the Settlement Officer, whose orders are also determinative and are subject to appeal before the higher hierarchy as envisaged under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act is certainly a Court and the provisions of Sec. 195 of the Code Criminal Procedure would be applicable.