MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition are that Laxmi Narain alongwith some other trustees had filed an ejectment application on 26th September, 1978 against the present petitioners Mahabir Singh and Ram Bilas on the ground of non -payment of rent. According to the rent note dated 24th March 1975, rent was stated to be Rs. 575/ - P.M. The petitioners in those proceedings pleaded that Laxmi Narian had executed a writing on 24th March, 1975, which is the date of the rent note, agreeing to receive rent at the rate of Rs. 150/ - P. M. During the trial of that case before the Rent Controller, Bhiwani, present petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 appeared as witnesses and also examined petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 as their witnesses. The alleged writing dated 24th March, 1975 was also produced in evidence as Exhibit R 1. This writing is said to have been scribed by Bishan Kumar petitioner No. 5 and attested by Shoan Singh and Burjit Singh petitioners No. 3 and 4 respectively. Petitioner No. 7 Mangli Ram is said to have called the scribe and attesting witnesses for executing R. 1. Petitioner No. 6 Khulu Ram is said to have stated in those proceedings that on 18th March, 1983 Laxmi Narain bad agreed to receive rent at the rate of Rs. 150/ - P. M. from the tenants. The Rent Controller held that the receipt was a forged and fabricated document and Laxmi Narain had not entered into any agreement with the tenants agreeing to receive rent at the rate of Rs. 150/ - P.M. The said ejectment petition was decided against the tenants on 7th August, 1981.

(2.) ON the basis of the observations made and findings given in the order of the Rent Controller, Laxmi Narain filed an application before him under section 340 Criminal Procedure Code for making a preliminary enquiry and to make a complaint in writing to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In that petition it was alleged that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 had dishonestly and fraudulently prepared a false, fabricated and forged document by forging his signature on Exhibit R.I. with intent to cause harm and loss to him and to cause wrongful gain to themselves knowingfully well that the said document was a false and fabricated one. He further pleaded that petitioner No. 7 had abetted the commission of offence of forgery by giving intentional aid to the respondents. It was also pleaded that the said writing was forged in order to produce the same in judicial proceedings and it was actually produced in evidence and the petitioners had given false evidence regarding due execution of that document by him and other trustees. Thus they had committed offences punishable under sections 456, 466, 467, 471 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. Notice of this application was issued to the present petitioners. After bearing the parties and taking evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that the petitioners had conspired to enter in to a criminal conspiracy to forge the document Exhibit R. 1 dishonestly and fraudulently by forging signature of Laxmi Narain with intent to cause harm and loss to him and to cause wrongful gain to themselves knowing fully well that the said document was false and fabricated one. About petitioner No. 6 Khulu Ram, it was remarked that he had abetted the commission of the offence of forgery by giving intentional aid to the other petitioners. He also held that the petitioners had committed offences punishable under sections 193/465/466/471/109/120 -B, Indian Penal Code and that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the commission of the offences by an appropriate Court. He further ordered that the order be treated as a complaint as envisaged under section 340, Criminal Procedure Code and be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani for taking appropriate action against the petitioners.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which was heard by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. He did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The petitioners have now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.