GANESH BINDAL Vs. HARMANDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioner has filed a petition under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, for alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement on the part of the respondents and the same is pending adjudication, in the meantime the petitioner has filed the present company application with the prayer to take cognisance of the offence committed by the respondents and direct appropriate inquiry under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Precisely speaking, it has been stated in the company application that the petitioner has strong suspicion that it is respondent No. 1 who appears to have fabricated the false signature of respondent No. 2 on the pages of the reply. Further, the resignation letter of the petitioner and another director of the company, viz., Shri Harcharan Singh have also been fabricated and misused against the petitioner and submitted to the Registrar of Companies apart from the fabricated resolution of the company dated July 5, 2011. In addition, it has also been submitted that the respondents misutilised and misused the signature given by the petitioner on blank paper in good faith, by using the same to fabricate a board resolution dated July 5, 2011. In this regard, it has been pointed out that there is a wide gap between the line where the text of the resolution ends and where the signature is purported to have been affixed by the petitioner. Furthermore, even the official designation stamp, is tilting towards the right side edge of the page, falling outside the right margin on the contents of the resolution. Not only this, pre -signed blank papers have been misused by respondent No. 1 to fabricate the alleged affidavit signed on October 14, 2010, to suit his own needs and convenience. Though there have been various litigations and proceedings before various forums, but till date the alleged affidavit has never been produced before any authority and it has been produced for the first time by using back dated adhesive stamps. With regard to the said affidavit, the following discrepancies have also been pointed out:

(2.) THE petitioner's advocate argued that the signature of respondent No. 2 appearing in the pleadings and all affidavits as deponent, attached with the written statement reply to applications in Company Petition No. 1 (ND) of 2012 are forged and fabricated and they are different from the signature on the sale deed executed by him before the Sub -Registrar, Kairana. Further, it has been pleaded that Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with false evidence and offences against public justice. Section 191 defines giving of false evidence as an offence while section 193 prescribes the punishment. There are also other provisions with regard to false evidence. These provisions are there to enable the court to punish those who make false averments in the pleadings or file forged documents. The procedure is given in section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

(3.) LASTLY , it has been stated that the signature of respondent No. 2 in the affidavits are not genuine and this hon'ble court has jurisdiction to send the disputed documents containing the admitted signatures and the forged signatures to the Forensic Sciences Department for comparison so that the truth will come out.