JABAL SINGH @ JAWAHAR SINGH Vs. GUDDI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has filled the present appeal for challenging the judgment dated 31.3.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed and the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC.

(2.) According to the complainant, respondent No.1-Smt. Guddi entered into an agreement to sell her 4 kanals 13 marlas of agricultural land to him. As Shrichand, husband of Smt. Guddi did not execute the sale deed, the complainant filed civil suit for possession by way of specific performance.

(3.) The suit was filed through Shri Madan Singh Dalal, Advocate. Despite the accused putting pressure upon him several times to compromise the matter, he had been asking Smt. Guddi to execute the sale deed. Smt. Guddi, in collusion with respondent No.2-Sunder Lal Tewatia, an advocate, and in the absence of the complainant and his advocate Shri Madan Singh Dalal, got recorded false statement of the complainant on 28.8.2006 with the Reader of the Court to the effect that the dispute stood settled and, therefore, the complainant did not want to proceed further with the case. As he was withdrawing the case, the file be consigned to the record-room. Accused Sunder Lal Tewatia fabricated the signatures of the complainant on the above statement and at that time the complainant was purportedly identified by Shri Manoj Rawat, Advocate. In this way, in the presence of the complainant and his advocate and on the basis of false proceedings, the suit was dismissed on 28.8.2006 as having been withdrawn. The complainant had never withdrawn the case nor he appeared in the Court on 28.8.2006 nor he had signed the above statement nor also his advocate had the instructions to withdraw the case. When the complainant came to know about the dismissal of his suit, he enquired from Shri Manoj Rawat, Advocate, who told him that accused Sunder Lal Tewatia had signed in place of the complainant after getting him identified fraudulently.