RAJIV GOYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Rajiv Goyal petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for a direction to the respondents to register a first information report and investigate the case on basis of the complaint made by the petitioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts alleged are that Maya Devi widow of Amolak Ram was the grand -mother of the petitioner. She was the owner of 26 Kanals 5 Marlas of land in Dera Kalan, Thanesar situated on Amin Road, near Git Girls High School, Kurukshetra. She also had 1/4th share in Shree Gopal Krishna Cold Storage. Few days before the death of Smt. Maya Devi the petitioner learnt that partners of M/s. Gopal Krishna Rice and General Mills, namely Bimla Devi, Smt. Vijay Goyal and partners of M/s. Shree Gopal Krishna Cold Storage had obtained a fictitious decree dated 12.10.1994 from the Court of Shri Manjit Singh, Sub Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra, against Maya Devi. The decree was obtained on the basis of an affidavit dated 23.11.1985. The petitioner made enquiries from his grand -mother in connection with the decree. She informed that she had neither executed any affidavit nor appeared before any Notary Public. She had never appeared in any court to suffer a decree in favour of M/s. Gopal Krishna Rice and General Mills, Amin Road, Kurukshetra or M/s. Shree Gopal Krishna Cold Storage and Ice Factory, Amin Road, Kurukshetra. The petitioner obtained the certified copies. At that time his grand - mother died. He got the thumb impressions of his grand -mother appearing on the written statement and statement made in the court, compared and it was opined that they were of two different persons. It was contended that the concerned persons have committed the offences, the first information report has not been recorded and that a direction should be given to this effect.

(3.) IN the reply filed the respondents contested the petition. It was pointed that the petitioner himself submitted a memo that parties may be allowed to have their matter settled. Plea was further raised that because of Section 195 Cr.P.C., there is a bar. There is no complaint made by the court before whom another person than the grand -mother of the petitioner or forged document was produced.