Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Respondents 1 to 4 further submitted that the complainant was not a party to the termination agreement and his signature also did not find place in the agreement and, therefore, the question of manipulation of the said document does not arise. He was curious to allege that one of the directors of the company had taken away the original documents and records from the company. The amounts which had been received by the complainant from the intending purchasers had been completely accounted by the company. The complainant's stand was that the complaint discloses commission of theft of document, forgery of certain records and criminal intimidation and, therefore, the police had rightly started the investigation.

9. After noticing the factual aspects the High Court referred to some judgments and came to an abrupt conclusion in the following words:

"Here in this case, there is no forgery of documents referred to in the complaint. The first respondent invents certain documents to show that those documents were not in the handwriting of the complainant. Further, there is no allegation that by using such forged document, the accused has acquired gains. Therefore the above authority will not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case."