MUNNA LAL RARA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C., by the accused petitioner is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated May 16, 1987.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that non-petitioner Mohammed Saddique filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5 Jaipur City. The allegation against the petitioner was that in a Civil Suit filed by Vinod Behari against the petitioner, the petitioner filed photostat copies of two documents; (a) a rent-note dated May 18, 1947; and (b) a receipt for Rs 3001 /--dated Dec. 27, 1952 According to the complainant both the above documents had forged signature of one Durga Sahai. The suit filed by Vinod Behari was withdrawn on Sept. 17,1984. The case of the complainant was that he had purchased the property in question from Vinod Behari and the forged documents were affecting the complainant as he had become the owner of the shop in question after its purchase from Vinod Behari, Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 465, 467 and 471 IPC.

(3.) The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate filed a revision. Learned Additional District and Sections Judge No 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, held that so far as offences under Sec. 465, 467 Penal Code was concerned no cognizance could be taken against the petitioner unless it was proved that the false documents were made by the petitioner. It was however, observed that so far as the question of offences under Sections 465 and 467 Penal Code was concerned, it was made clear that in case the complaint desires then he could move an application for taking specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused and could get the same compared with the alleged forged documents with a handwriting expert, and fresh action could be taken against the accused on the basis of result of such application. Learned Additional Sections Judge No. 2 Jaipur City. Jaipur dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner with regard to taking cognizance so far as offence under Sec. 471 Penal Code was concerned.