KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE was given to the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the parties were heard.

(2.) THE petitioner, in his capacity as a land lord, filed suit No. 70/95 Kailash v. Dr. Niranjan for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. It appears that a rent note was filed by Dr. Niranjan Lal, defendant, in the course of the proceedings of the said suit. The said suit was still pending before the said civil court, that the present petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the court of the Magistrate and such complaint was forwarded u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to the Police Station concerned. FIR No. 229/96 u/Sections 120-B, 193, 209, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC was registered on the basis of the complaint, so forwarded by the Magistrate. In the course of the investigation of the said case, the Investigating Officer moved an application u/S. 91/92 Cr.P.C. before the civil court requesting it to deliver the original rent note for the purposes of comparison of signature of Smt. Prem Lata thereon in order to determine whether a forgery in respect to that document had been committed or not. The learned Magistrate declined to deliver the said document to the Investigating Officer on the ground that the civil court has yet to determine as to whether the said document was a forged one or not. The learned Magistrate further directed that the copy of the order be placed on the relevant file of the civil suit. The present petitioner, who was the complainant in the said case as also the State of Rajasthan, challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge. But the learned Sessions Judge declined to exercise his jurisdiction u/S. 397 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner and the Investigating Officer on the ground that the civil Court was seized of the matter and was to determine the character of the said document as a genuine document or otherwise and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in passing his impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that the order has been passed by the civil court and that his court was not competent to revise an order passed by the civil court in exercise of jurisdiction u/S. 397(1) Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor has, however, supported the impugned orders. The parties appear to have mis-understood the factual as well as the legal position of the present case.