BOORD SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner against the order dtd. 1/4/2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar, Camp Suratgarh ('revisional court') in Criminal Revision No. 27/98, whereby, while allowing the revision filed by accused-respondent No. 2, the order dtd. 11/9/1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh ('trial court') in Criminal Case No. 541/98 was quashed and set aside; vide the said order dtd. 11/9/1998, the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondent No. 2 under Ss. 182, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that a complaint was submitted by complainant/petitioner-Boord Singh before the learned trial court alleging therein that accused-respondent No. 2-Avtar Singh had furnished a wrong information before the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Gram Panchayat Sardargarh regarding the death (occurred on 13/6/1990) of one Hazoor Singh s/o Kan Singh, r/o Chak 9 NRD, and on the basis of the same, a forged death certificate of his death was obtained; whereas, as per the complaint, the said Hazoor Singh was alive and residing in Village Kotbhai, Tehsil Mukatsar; the said Hazoor Singh had three sons, namely, Harnek Singh, Preetam Singh and Hardev Singh; such information, amongst others, regarding the fact that the said Hazoor Singh was alive, was also confirmed and verified by the Gram Panchayat, Kotbhai.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondent No. 2 oppose the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, while submitting that the learned revisional court, has rightly passed the impugned order whereby the learned court quashed and set aside the aforementioned cognizance order of the learned trial court; the same was done by the learned revisional court, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and after considering the entire evidence placed on record before it, more particularly, various self-contradictory averments that were made in the complaint in question by the complainant himself, which is clearly discernible on the face of the record.