HARENDRA SINGH AND GURUSHARAN SINGH Vs. RADHEYSHYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are inclined to take the view that this criminal miscellaneous case, seeking the quashing of Criminal proceedings against the two petitioners at the threshold stage of cognizance, is hardly well -conceived. It, therefore, suffices to advert to the facts with relative brevity. On the petitioners' showing, the respondent, Radhey Shyam Singh, on the 22nd December, 1973, preferred a complaint before the Sub -divisional Magistrate, West Sitamarhi, against the petitioners and two others, making detailed allegations therein and alleging commission of offences under Ss. 120B, 406, 409, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sub -divisional Magistrate, by his order dated the 22nd December, 1973, referred the matter to the Police for investigation and report. It would appear that the Police authorities proceeded tardily and it was not till the 6th of September, 1976, that a final report was submitted, saying somewhat curiously that the case was one of the mistake of fact. Meanwhile, the respondent -complainant, aggrieved by the delay and sketchy investigation being conducted by the Police, had preferred a protest petition before the trial court on the 6th of April, 1974. However, it was not till as late as the 29th of September, 1977, that the respondent -complainant was examined on solemn affirmation in the proceeding. Thereafter, admittedly 3 more witnesses were examined and a number of documents were also placed on the record for consideration. However, by his order dated the 28th February, 1978, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the complaint.

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the complainant -respondent preferred Criminal Revision No. 41 of 1978, before the Session Judge of Sitamarhi. This was allowed by a detailed order by the learned Sessions Judge on the 6th of July, 1978. Therein, he held that a number of documents bearing on the allegations made by the complainant, including a voucher bearing the alleged forged signature of the complainant and the alleged false attestation thereof as also the three dishonoured cheques, were not taken into consideration by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Indeed, he observed as under: - -

(3.) In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the complainant adduced on the record the evidence of a Hand -writing Expert as well, as P.W. 4 (Ranwir Sondhi), who proved on the record his report, holding that the signatures on the documents, purported to be signed by the complainant, did not tally with the specimen and the admitted signatures. By his detailed impugned order dated the 28th September, 1978, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the accused persons, after holding as under: - -