WATTAN CHAND Vs. PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing a complaint under Section 195 to 200 IPC against the respondents for filing wrong affidavits and for fabricating signatures and thumb impressions by the respondents. It has also been prayed that an appropriate action may be taken against the present respondents as is contemplated under the law.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Pritam Dass, elder brother of the petitioner, had filed a contempt petition (C) which was registered as Contempt Petition (C) No.24 of 1991 in this Court under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the said petition notices were issued to all the present respondents and as a consequence thereof the respondents filed their affidavits in response to the notices. The court decided the contempt petition on 31 -12 -1992 and observed that in view of the circumstances aforesaid, no finding as to the commission of contempt by the respondents can be given and the notice issued to the respondents were, therefore, discharged and the case was dropped.

(3.) It has been pleaded in the present petition that while filing reply affidavit (s) in the contempt petition by the respondents, the said affidavits were alleged to have been preferred with an intention to forge the signatures and thumb impression on behalf of the respondents and it was so done to take the benefit while putting forged signatures and thumb impressions with mentioning wrong date of birth with the sole purpose that the contempt petition preferred by Pritam Dass be dismissed in any manner. The petitioner has given, in detail, the affidavits alleged to have been forged on behalf of the respondents by putting their signatures or thumb impressions and it has been pleaded that actually the respondents were not present in Shim la when the alleged affidavits were sworn in. However, it has also been pleaded that Shri Prakash Chand, respondent No. 1, had signed his affidavit genuinely but he had wrongly identified the signatures and thumb impressions on the other affidavits filed by the respondents. Paras 3(1) to 3(xii) give the details of the alleged personification committed by affixing the signatures/thumb impressions for the respondents.