Delhi District Court
Pandit Digamber Sharma vs Sh. Ram Prakash Anand on 5 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 83/12
Pandit Digamber Sharma
S/o Sh. Dalchand
R/o Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir
71, Guru Angad Nagar Extension
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 92.
... Appellant
Vs.
1. Sh. Ram Prakash Anand
S/o Sh. Bhagat Ram
R/o H.No. 87B, Guru Angad Nagar Extension
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 92.
2. Sh. Madan Lal Arora
S/o Shri Jumma Ram
R/o H. No. 36B, Guru Angad Nagar Extension
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 92.
3. Sh. Prushottam Babbar
S/o Sh. Haribansa
R/o H.No. 76 A, Guru Angad Nagar Extension
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 92.
4. Sh. Rajender
S/o Sh. Diwan Chand
RCA No. 83/12 Page 1/7
R/o H. No. F112, Mangal Bazar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 92.
5. Sh. Ganga Ram
S/o Sh. Hotilal
R/o H.No. 96, Guru Angad Nagar Extension
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 92.
6. Sh. Ram Paras Shukla
S/o Shri Sidh Nath Shukla
R/o H.No. 555 (nearby Temple)
West Guru Angad Nagar
Delhi - 92.
7. Sh. S.K. Arora
S/o Shri Ram Pyare Lal
R/o 79, Guru Angad Nagar Extension
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 92.
.... Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 23.08.2012
Date of Arguments : 01.02.2013
Date of Judgment : 05.03.2013
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the Appellant u/s. 341 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 03.08.2012 passed by Sh. Ravinder Singh, CJ (E), KKD Courts, Delhi in M27/2012.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant RCA No. 83/12 Page 2/7 (plaintiff before Ld. Trial court) was looking after the 'Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir' bearing no. 71, Guru Angad Nagar Extention, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 92, as a priest along with his family members since 1972. In the month of July, 2010 on the ground of renovation of suit premises, the defendants requested the plaintiff to shift his family for one month to any other place from the suit premises, but the defendants never carried out the renovation of the suit premises and misused the temple money for personal gain and profit. Defendants have also removed the two original stones on which the name of the person who donated the land for the construction of the temple was inscribed. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the defendants, plaintiff filed the suit for restoration of possession of residential accommodation and permanent injunction against them before Ld. Trial Court.
The defendants filed the written statement in defence and denied the allegations of the plaintiff as made in his plaint. In the written statement, it is alleged that the defendants are members of the Managing Committee of Mandir which is registered with the office of Registrar of Societies.
The appellant has stated that the respondents in their written statement before the Ld. Trial Court have filed forged RCA No. 83/12 Page 3/7 documents i.e. registration certificate no. S/44972/03 of Sanatan Dharam Mandir at 7B, Guru Angad Nagar Extension, Delhi 92 by way of fabricating the address of suit premises to cover up their status of trespasser in suit property. Respondents also filed the forged and fabricated minutes books. They also misappropriated the funds of temple. It is further stated that respondent no. 7 appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 6 is party to forgery and cheating along with the respondents. The appellant filed the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondents for filing forged and fabricated documents on record, before the Ld. Trial, which was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 03.08.2012.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant filed the present appeal mainly on the following grounds:
1. The Ld. Trial Court wrongly dismissed the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. without issuing notice to the respondent.
2. Ld. Trial Court wrongly observed that offence of forgery, if any, was committed prior to filing of written statement as the registration certificate, the claimed forged document, was filed along with written statement.
RCA No. 83/12 Page 4/7
3. Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C.
4. That the impugned orders dated 03.08.2012 is liable to be set aside as the same is erroneous and illegal.
I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties. I have also perused the file, written submissions filed by the parties and Trial Court Record. I have also perused the case relied upon by the appellant.
It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Ld. Trial court passed the impugned order by overlooking the facts of the case. It was contended that the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the forged documents were filed in the court along with the WS. It was contended that the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. are attracted. It was contended that the Ld. Trial Court did not issue notice to the respondents and passed the impugned order without application of the mind.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is perfectly valid and does not call for any interference by this court. It was contended that the forgery, if any, as alleged was not committed during the court proceedings and therefore, RCA No. 83/12 Page 5/7 provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. are not applicable.
The Certificate of Registration which the appellant claims to be forged was filed along with the WS. Therefore, in my view the offence of forgery, if any, was committed prior to the filing of WS. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondents committed offence of forgery after the document was filed in the court. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that no offence of forgery was committed after the document was produced in the court or when the document was in custodia legis.
The object of Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it was also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action as required u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
The case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
In my view, no offence of forgery was committed while the document was in custodia legis. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. Appeal is RCA No. 83/12 Page 6/7 without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.
The copy of the judgment along with the TCR be sent back to the Trial Court.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court on 05.03.2013 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) Addl. District Judge, East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
RCA No. 83/12 Page 7/7