HIRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sadulshahar taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. as affirmed in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated 19.12.2008.

(3.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2/complainant filed a FIR at the Police Station, Sadulshahar with the allegations that a land measuring 16 bighas had been allotted to his mother Mahendro and his maternal grand mother on 13.10.1958. It was further alleged that the complainant's mother Mahendro, his grand maternal mother Kano and Toti were having equal shares in the land. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the complainant's mother had a share of 5.07 bighas of land which the complainant and his brother & sisters were entitled to receive in succession. The complainant also stated that after the death of his mother and grand maternal mother, accused Hira Singh prepared a forged affidavit of his mother and grand maternal mother and tried to wrongfully usurp the land of the complainant. The police investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the possession of land in question was of Hira Singh. It was also found that on 26.4.1974, Kano and her two daughters Teja and Mahendro gave an affidavit in support of Hira Singh thereby bequeathing the land in favour of the petitioner and as such, the complaint lodged by the complainant was false. On the submission of final report, the complainant filed protest petition and had the statements of his own and his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Crimial P.C. During the course of enquiry, the complainant submitted a report of the private handwriting expert on the basis of which it was attempted to demonstrate that the signatures of Mahendro on the original Rahannama (bequeathment deed), ration card and a certificate said to be bearing the signatures of Mahendro, did not match with each other. The learned Magistrate thereafter relying on the said report of the alleged handwriting expert, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner as mentioned above. The petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance by way of a revision and the revisional court has affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition seeking quashing of orders impugned as well as cognizance taken against the petitioner.