Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 . The factual matrix of the case in brief, is that the complainants, namely, Dr.Gopal Prasad Shrivastava, Surendra Chandra Sood, Satyendra Prakash Sarvaiya, Smt.Urmila Sarvaiya and Om Prakash Khurana have filed criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, against the present petitioners and accused No.3/Dr.H.S.Dwivedi and Secretary of the Federation, Theosophical Society and accused No.4/S.Sundaram, General Secretary, Theosophical Society, Varanasi (UP). It is alleged that Theosophical Society was established long back and the present complainants are its members since 1961. The petitioner No.1-Vijay Singh taking advantage of serious illness of the then President, namely, S.B.Shukla interfered in the work of Theosophical Society and changed the documents and submitted fresh registration form. It is also alleged that the petitioner No.1 was running a Coaching Class and gradually captured the Theosophical Society. Then the complainants/respondents No.1 to 5 lodged a complaint with Dr.Dwivedi, the Secretary of the Society (respondent No.6). The 2 CRR-1909-2015 petitioner No.1 got annoyed with this and had threatened the

3. On 02.9.2008, on the pretext of meeting with Satyavir Tyagi a meeting of Theosophical Society was called. In which suddenly election was declared. The petitioner was shown as the Secretary of the Society. The petitioner No.2 declared the petitioner No.1 as the President of the Society and petitioner No.2 became the Secretary of the Society. He also declared his brother as the Vice President of the Society and his father as the Treasurer of the Society. The senior members of the Society were not included in the executives. In this general meeting G.R.Belekar was shown to have attended the meeting and signed the minutes. Whereas the death of G.R.Belekar occurred much prior to that date.

7. In the allegations itself, the complainants have stated that the membership have wrongly been cancelled, taking advantage by the petitioners No.1 & 2 and tried to capture the Theosophical Society. It was not proper on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to disallow the complaint only on the ground that complainants' membership have been cancelled, therefore, they are not members of the society.

8. In the light of above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal by the impugned order dated 19.6.2015 has rightly observed that, at this stage the complainants are not required to produce all the evidence. The prima facie evidence was to be produced for taking cognizance of the offence. The complainant prima facie established that there has been certain circumstances whereby the documents have been forged and the trial Court should not have hesitated to take appropriate action. It would be appropriate at this stage to mention that, whether the allegation made in the complaint are not absurd or inherently improbable and the conclusion is sufficient for the proceeding against the accused or the discretion should be exercised by the Magistrate in issuing the process. On the basis of the prima facie evidence available, which are relevant and admissible, the complainant does not suffer from any legal defect the proceeding ought to have been initiated.