Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritam Singh Son Of Mahima Singh vs Avtar Singh Son Of Hardayal Singh on 7 October, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6111 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision:07.10.2013
Pritam Singh son of Mahima Singh, resident of Rauni Khurd, Tehsil
Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
...Petitioner
versus
Avtar Singh son of Hardayal Singh, resident of Village Ratangarh,
Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The petition filed by the defendant complaining of forgery of a document as alleged to have been made by the plaintiff and for prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The aggrieved defendant is the revision petitioner before this Court. In my view, the petition is premature. The counsel refers me to a decision of a 5-member Bench of this Court in Madan Lal Sharma Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court-1999(2) PLR 766 which Kumar Sanjeev 2013.10.10 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.6111 of 2013 (O&M) -2- laid down that the Court has power to launch prosecution irrespective of the fact whether forgery was committed while the document was in custody of Court or the document was forged outside Court and thereafter produced in Court. The Court was also holding that the enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not must for institution of proceedings against the accused. In Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Versus Meenakshi Marwah and another- 2005(4) SCC 370, the Supreme Court held that the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. As the Section is conditioned by the words that, "the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice", such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice is required and not in every case. Laying down a procedure, the Supreme Court held that the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the fact that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to Section 195(1)(b).
2. It is merely a stage where the plaintiff has sued on a document which is claimed by the defendant as forgery and it will be inexpedient to take a complaint and make any form of enquiry at this stage. I do not find any illegality about the order for interference in revision. Revision petition is dismissed, but it is however clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application at Kumar Sanjeev 2013.10.10 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.6111 of 2013 (O&M) -3- the conclusion of trial if there is a finding that the document is a forgery or the Court has any other material on the basis of which the Court is of the opinion that a criminal prosecution shall subserve ends of justice
3. The revision petition is disposed of with the above observations.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 07.10.2013 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2013.10.10 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh