LAWS(P&H)-1997-3-94

HAQIQAT SINGH Vs. AMRITPAL SINGH

Decided On March 05, 1997
HAQIQAT SINGH Appellant
V/S
Amritpal Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioners Haqiqat Singh and Kuldip Kaur seek quashing of the complaint and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar.

(2.) THE learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The private respondent Amrit Pal Singh filed a revision petition in the court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on 16.8.1989 set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It was held :-

(3.) RELIANCE on behalf of the petitioners was being placed on the decision in the case of Radheshyam Dubey v. Chandra Bali Singh and others, 1983 Allahabad Law Journal 793. In the cited case the allegations of the complaint were that accused persons had entered into a conspiracy and one of the accused sold certain property to other accused under a fictitious sale deed. It belonged to the applicant. It was held that it would not be forgery contemplated under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. The ratio of the decision is that if a person who is a genuine person executes or signs the papers in own name, then he does not commit any forgery. Similar view prevailed with this Court in the case of B.R. Gupta v. Kaushal Kumar, 1995(3) RCR 621. There the petitioner had let the property describing himself as full owner of the property. In fact he owned 3/4th share in the property. It was held that offence of forgery is not made out. Both these decisions on facts are distinguishable. There is no false assertion as in the above said decisions. In the present case, it is alleged that person knew that it is being executed without the authority of the private respondents. The nature of events and the facts stated, therefore, make the facts of the present case distinguishable. There is no ground to exercise the inherent powers and interfere in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, the petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.