Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. Dr. Uppal has also referred to various judgments in support of his submissions, which shall be dealt with a little later in this judgment.

35. Sh. Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent, Sh. R.P. Bansal, has adopted the same line of argument, as advance by Sh. K.K. Sud, Senior Advocate to say that the controversy regarding elections was at the base of all the controversies including the alleged forgery and fabrication of documents, and that as the controversy regarding elections had been resolved by the High Court by holding elections under the supervision of Mr. Justice J.D. Jain (Retd.), no other controversy remained outstanding. He further submits that the orders in the Suit/FAO (OS) No.204/2002 were consent orders passed practically compromising the disputes between the parties. The petitioner did not reserve any right to pursue the criminal action initiated by him by lodging FIR No.119/1997. He submits that there was no mensrea of Sh. R.P. Bansal to commit an offence under section 201 read with section 120B IPC and the observation of the learned Magistrate that Sh. R.P. Bansal did not have any personal interest in the matter has to be read and understood in that context.

38. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. Sud, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl MC Nos.7311-15/2006 that dispute between the parties was only of a civil nature and essentially pertained to the conduct of elections and management of the Sabha. No doubt, there was a tussle between the rival factions with regard to the management of the Sabha. However, the allegations against the petitioners/accused is that in their effort to wrest the management of the Sabha, they resorted to forgery and fabrication of documents to legitimize their alleged usurpation of the management of the Sabha, and committed criminal tresspass. The alleged acts of forgery and fabrication of documents and criminal trespass would entail penal consequences, if established. Merely because the dispute with regard to the elections and management of the Sabha may had got resolved with the passing of the orders by this court on the original side (directing holding of elections under the supervision of court observer, which were eventually held), it does not put to rest the controversy as to whether or not any forgery or fabrication of documents, and criminal trespass had been committed by the accused/petitioners or not.

40. A perusal of the orders passed by this Court on the original side in the aforesaid suits as well as in the FAO (OS) would show that the same had absolutely no bearing on the aspect of the alleged forgery and fabrication of documents and the alleged criminal trespass.

41. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. Sud that the Complainant, Shri. Jitender Nath, at whose behest the aforesaid FIR was registered, did not reserve to himself the right to pursue the FIR or the proceedings arising therefrom when the suit was disposed of, and consequently, the aforesaid FIR and proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. There was no question of making any such reservation. Once the FIR had been registered, it was the obligation of the investigating agency to investigate the reported offences and to file the final form before the learned Magistrate. I may also note that a perusal of the plaint in the Suit No.768/1987 would show that no relief of declaration in respect of the said allegedly forged documents or criminal trespass had been sought by the plaintiff in the suit. The said issues were not directly raised in the said suit. In any event, the civil court did not frame any issues relating to the genuineness of the said documents or the issue of criminal trespass, much less return any finding on those issues. Even if the said issues had been raised and decided, the finding of the civil court would not be binding in criminal proceeding.

51. From the aforesaid materials it, prima facie, appears that the allegedly forged and fabricated documents may have been misplaced from the office of Sh. R.P. Bansal. From the communication of Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents dated 28.11.2005, it is apparent that to conduct scientific examination of the documents with regard to the alleged forgery and fabrication, it is essential that the original documents, and not reproduction copies, should be produced.

52. I may now examine the nature of allegations made against Sh. R.P. Bansal in the case relating to FIR No.164/2005. The case of the prosecution is that Seth Ramlal Khemka had died on 24.12.1958 having donated his three storied building in Chandni Chowk for charitable purpose. He had created a trust of five persons. Pertinently, Sh. R.P. Bansal was not one of them. According to the prosecution, a managing committee had been constituted by the trustees. Sh. R.P. Bansal was not a member of the managing committee. The prosecution case is that on 26.12.2003, one Pandur Ram took the ground floor of the Dharamsala for use for a period of three days. However, he did not return the keys and on enquiry, he claimed that he had taken the keys from Giridharilal Tiwari. In turn, Sh. Giridharilal Tiwari stated that he acted on the instructions of Sh. R.P. Bansal. Sh. R.P. Bansal instead of returning the keys, affixed a board on the main gate of the Dharamsala showing his name as a trustee.