NASIB SINGH Vs. MAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, dated February 16, 1979, whereby he set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Safidon, dated May 12, 1978 and quashed the proceedings, has been challenged. Initially the matter came up before A.S. Bains J., who doubted the correctness of the ratio laid down in Mst. Ido V. Gainda Singh, etc., 1952 AIR(Pep) 38. Finding that the matter was not free from difficulty the case was recommended to be referred to a larger Bench. It is in this manner that the matter has been placed before us.

(2.) The rule laid down in Mst. Ido's case came to be employed in the following situation:

(3.) Nasib Singh, resident of village Gogripur got lodged a first information report No. 173, dated 18th August, 1977 at Police Station, Safidon, complaining that a will had been forged by the present Respondents, purporting to have been made by one Bhartha who had died on the night intervening 20/21st September, 1976. Maman, Respondent No. 1, was the brother of Bhartha deceased and he was the father of the legatees under the forged will. Sheetal Parkash Respondent was the petition-writer; Jaswant Singh was the Sub-Registrar and Shri Jai Dev Singh, Advocate, was the other accessory and co-conspirator in the forging of the will so as to deprive Smt. Shanti and Smt. Gogri, the daughters of the deceased Bhartha, the benefit of natural succession. These two women, he claimed, were his daughters-in-law. The police after investigating the matter submitted a report under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting for the cancellation of the case. The Judicial Magistrate thereupon sent a notice to the first informant, and the aforementioned Smt. Shanti and Smt. Gogri, if they had any grouse over the proposed cancellation of the case. On appearance of these persons, the learned Magistrate recorded their statements and also of Baru and the Vigilance Inspector Bhajan Singh. Then he,-vide his order, dated 12th May, 1978 directed the present Respondents to be summoned as accused persons to answer the accusations under Sections 467, 468, 420, 474, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said order was challenged in revision by the Respondents successfully before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind who,--vide his judgment, dated 16th February, 1979 set aside the order and suggested that despite his decision, the first informant could file a private complaint if it was so maintainable under the law. The principal reason which weighed with him was that in view of the decision in Mst. Ido V. Gainda Singh, etc., 1952 AIR(Pep) 38, in which reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of the same Court reported as Harbir Singh V. The State and Anr., 1952 AIR(Pep) 29, the Judicial Magistrate had no power to summon the accused Respondents when the Investigating Officer had made a report for cancellation of the case. Sustenance to the view was also sought from Sona Devi V. The State, etc., 1972 CurLJ 955. Further revision has been filed by the first informant challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is based on Mst. Idol's case and hence we are required to examine the correctness of the foundation of the same.