SANGEET SOOD Vs. KULDEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dtd. 12/6/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla (learned Revisional Court) affirming the order dtd. 19/1/2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Rohru, Shimla (learned Trial Court). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 467, 471 and 420 read with Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the complainant and accused are residents of village Rohru and they are businessmen. The complainant is a tenant of M/s Kishan Dass Mohal Lal since 1977. He is running a business of Manyari at Rohru near the shop of the accused. He was paying the rent @ ?50 per month for the vacant land, where the complainant had constructed a shop to run a Karyana shop. A rent deed was executed between the parties on 1/4/1988. The complainant's shop was looted and destroyed in July 1990 during the apple agitation. The complainant started constructing a shop over the same land but he was obstructed by the accused. Accused No.1 filed an FIR No. 96/92 dtd. 5/4/1992 against the complainant in Police Station Rohru. The complainant and other persons were arrested by the police. The Court supplied copies of the challan containing one rent agreement consisting of three pages. The complainant found that the middle page of the agreement was substituted by a judicial paper bearing Sl. No. 0103590 of the year 1991. The Judicial paper of the year 1991 could not have been sold in the year 1988 when the agreement was prepared. Hence, it was prayed that the action be taken against the accused as per the law.

(3.) The learned Trial Court sent the complaint to the police for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police submitted a cancellation report. The report was rejected and the matter was sent for re-investigation. Again the cancellation report was submitted. The Court took cognizance and called upon the complainant to lead the evidence.