Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh vs Satellite Infra And Real Estate Pvt. ... on 17 February, 2017
Cr.R. No.795/2014
17.02.2017
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 &
3. Shri Vimal Kumar Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Heard.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 30.05.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in unregistered Private Criminal Complaint No.0/14, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the applicant's application filed u/S.93 (1) of Cr.P.C. for issuing the search warrant against the respondents no 1 to 3 for procuring the document.
Brief facts of the case are that applicant/complainant filed a private complaint before ACJM, Indore against the respondents averting that complainant bought plots No.1345 & 1346 from Satellite Infra & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Respondent no.1, respondents Nos.2 to 3 are the Directors of that company and responsible for day to day work of the company. After the complainant purchased the plots respondents transferred the alleged plots to other persons. On 05.12.2013 when complainant saw the documents then only he came to know about the fact that the respondents have transferred his plots on the basis of the documents containing his forged signature forged identity document. So cognizance be taken against the respondents for the offence u/S.403, 406, 415, 418, 420, 423, 463, 464, 467, 468 & 120-B of IPC.
Applicant along with the complaint also filed an application u/S.91 of Cr.P.C. averting that alleged forged document is in the possession of respondent no.1 to 3, so that document be called from them. The trial Court allowed the prayer and ordered to issue notices to respondents no.1 to 3 directing them to file all the documents relating to the plots No.1345 & 1346, before the Court. But their notices returned unserved. Thereafter, applicant again filed an application u/S.93 (1) (ka) of Cr.P.C. praying that respondents were deliberately refusing to receive the notices regarding producing the document and were trying to destroy the original document: so search warrant be issued for procuring the documents.
The trial Court rejected the prayer averting that provisions of Section 93 of Cr.P.C. comes into the action only when it appears that order issued u/S.91 & 92 is not being complied with. Earlier, on the application of applicant filed u/S.91 of Cr.P.C., trial Court only had ordered to issue notice to the respondents no.1 to 3 to produce the said documents. So order cannot be changed and search warrant cannot be issued. Even otherwise respondents No.1 to 3, are the accused in the complaint so they cannot be directed to produce the documents against themselves and rejected the prayer, against which this revision has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the documents called by the respondents no.1 to 3 are essential for proving the case of the complainant and there is a possibility that respondents no.1 to 3 would destroy the documents so he filed an application u/S.93 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for issuing the search warrant for procuring the documents because the said documents are in the possession of the respondents no.1 to 3 and they can intentionally destroy the same and avoid the service. The trial Court wrongly rejected the applicant's application without paying attention of this fact.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and averted that documents called by applicant are not in the possession of the respondents and so they are unable to file them. Even otherwise respondents are the accused in the complaint. and no accused can be directed to file the evidence against him .
This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties. Respondents no.1 to 3 clearly stated that the said documents are not in their possession, so no question to issue search warrant against the respondent no.1 to 3 for producing the said document arises. Even other wise it is clear from the complaint filed by the applicant before the ACJM, Indore, that the respondents no.1 to 3 are the accused in the case and the document, the production of which is sought for, would be self-incriminatory and in that circumstance the production of the document will amount to testimonial compulsion within the meaning of article 20(3) of the Constitution. So they cannot be compelled to produce the said document. the apex Court in his judgment passed in State of Gujrarat vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi Manubhai Patel reported (1965) 6 GLR 698 held that accused persons cannot be called for producing the evidence against him. So learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's prayer for issuing the search warrant against respondents No.1 to 3 for procuring the documents.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE JYOTI