WAZIR SINGH Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WAZIR Singh and Gurmej Singh, petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against Kulwant Singh son of Tarlok Singh for the quashment of the complaint dated 10.4.1994 Annexure P.1, summoning order dated 19.12.1994 Annexure P.2 and order dated 30.11.1996, Annexure P.4.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners Darshan Singh had executed a 'Will' regarding his property in favour of the petitioners on 21.7.1969. The possession of the land mentioned in that 'Will' was also delivered to the petitioners and after the death of said Darshan Singh which took place on 6.6.1970, the petitioners started cultivating the said land as owners. However, Gurcharan Kaur wife of Kulwant Singh filed a civil suit for possession in respect of that land in which the said will dated 21.7.1969 came up for adjudication. The suit of Gurcharan Kaur was decreed by the trial Court on 30.9.1976. The appeal was dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar on 29.2.1990 and the Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed by the High Court filed by the petitioner on 2.11.1993. The will executed by Darshan Singh was not believed by the courts. Thereafter, respondent Kulwant Singh filed a complaint against the petitioners and others under sections 420, 465, 467 and 120-B IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 15.9.1994 complaining that the petitioners in conspiracy with each other and with other accused had forged the said will of Darshan Singh which will was also produced in the court by the petitioners during the trial of the Civil Suit and this will was forged by the petitioners and others intentionally in order to deprive Ms. Gurcharan Kaur of the property. The preliminary evidence in the shape of the statements was recorded and the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioners and others vide order dated 19.12.1994. In pursuance of the process, the petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and moved an application on 4.6.1996 Annexure P.3 that the complaint was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed. It was the specific stand of the petitioners that Kulwant Singh was not a party to the civil litigation and the complaint at his instance was barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Such a complaint could only be filed either by the trial court or by the appellate Court after complying with the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate issued notice of this application to the respondents and vide orders dated 30.11.1996 dismissed the same on the plea that it was not competent on his part to review the summoning order passed by his predecessor. The complaint, summoning order dated 30.11.1996 and order dated 19.12.1994 are being challenged by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the very complaint filed by respondent Kulwant Singh is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and that Kulwant Singh respondent had no locus standi to file the complaint as he was not a party to the civil suit.

(3.) SECTION 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as follows :-