High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Puran Chand v. Radhey sham & Ors. - CRM-70880-m-2005  RD-P&H 3275 (18 May 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 70880-M of 2005
Date of decision: May 24, 2006.
Radhey sham & Ors.
Present: Shri Aman Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Narender Sura, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing/modification of the order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dismissing the petitioner's revision petition being not maintainable as well as against the order dated 10.1.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsa whereby he refused to summon the respondents under sections 168, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The petitioner seeks modification of the aforesaid order to the extent that the respondents may also be directed to be summoned under the provisions, referred to above.
From the scant material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner had firstly filed a civil suit No.44 of 97/2000 in which he sought a declaration to the effect that some kikar trees planted by the Forest Crl. Misc. No. 70880-M of 2005 -: 2 :-
Department on his private land, exclusively belong to him. The said civil suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa on 11.8.2000.
The petitioner preferred an appeal which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn by him on 7.2.2002 with the observations that he may avail any appropriate remedy permissible under the law, in appropriate forum.
It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for damages/compensation on account of negligence on the part of the authorities of the Forest Department (and not any individual by name) for not planting the trees as per the agreement between the parties on the land measuring 3.3 hectares. It was averred in the suit that, as per agreement arrived at between him and the Forest Department, 4200 trees were to be planted by the Department, however, due to their negligence and inaction, lesser number of trees were actually planted. The said civil suit was contested by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project by taking the following plea in the written statement:- "12. that the contents of para No.12 and the prayer of the Suit are wrong and hence denied. 7 acres of 55 K. 12 M.
comes out of 2.8 hectares. As per rules 4200 trees cannot be planted on this land. The statement of plaintiff that land is 3.3 hectares is totally false. Out of the 2.8 hectares of land given by the plaintiff, on 2.5 hectares of land which was found fit for cultivation, as per the rules of S.D.F. Model, 3125 trees were planted, which were to be taken care by the Department for 3 years and were then to be returned back to the plaintiff with its charge. The plaintiff by not taking charge after three years has violated Section 2(a), (b), (c), Crl. Misc. No. 70880-M of 2005 -: 3 :-
(d) of the Agreement. Not only this, the plaintiff had instituted this suit only to waste the time of this Hon'ble Court. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a proper action be taken against the plaintiff for his wrong act with costs."
Alleging that the plea taken by the respondents is totally false and based upon fabricated record, the petitioner claims to have filed an application under section 340 Cr.P.C. for taking necessary action against them. The said application, however, was turned down by the court on the ground that the alleged forgery or fabrication of documents did not take place in the court, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable and as such only a private complaint could be filed.
Encouraged by these observations, the petitioner instituted a criminal complaint under sections 167, 168, 193, 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. As pointed out earlier, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on a consideration of the preliminary evidence, has, prima-facie, found that the respondents are liable to be summoned under section 167, 193 and 218 IPC only and not for the remaining offences, as alleged by the petitioner.
The petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being not maintainable. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
There can be no doubt that if a party to a lis commits an act of forgery or fabrication in relation to some piece of evidence in the court, appropriate proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. and/or Section 195 Crl. Misc. No. 70880-M of 2005 -: 4 :-
Cr.P.C. can be initiated by the court suo-moto and/or on a motion by any of the party. Similarly, if the civil court, in its final verdict, also returns a finding of fact that a party has produced some forged or fabricated evidence, it might give a legitimate cause to the opposite party to initiate such like proceedings. Admittedly, no such finding of fact has been returned by the civil court in favour of the petitioner.
Though, any observations by this court on merits of the case may unnecessarily prejudice either of the parties in the criminal complaint, as the respondents have already been summoned to face trial under section 167, 193 and 218 IPC, however, prima-facie no exception can be taken to the observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the impugned order Annexure P-2. No case, whatsoever, to summon the respondents under sections 168, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC is made out at this stage.
May 24, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.