Allahabad High Court
Deo Dutt vs State Of U.P. & Others on 10 April, 2012
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3 of 2010
Petitioner :- Deo Dutt
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajiv Joshi
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Siddharth
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
A complaint was filed in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Sahaswan, District Badaun under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by the revisionist for summoning the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 IPC, police station Gunnaur, District Badaun.
The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., respectively, on the basis of which the learned Magistrate found a prima-faice case against the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 forging a 'will' and tried to use it by filing the same in the court. Thus, the learned Magistrate on 11-2-2000 summoned the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to stand their trial for the said offences. It appears that on coming to know about the summoning order dated 11-2-2000, the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 filed their objections by means of an application paper No.20-Ka and prayed to the Court that the summoning order be set-aside as the same is not in accordance with law.
The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and directed the accused -opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 to be present before the Court on 29-6-2001.
Aggrieved by the order dated 6-6-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 138 of 2001, Krishna Murari Vs. State of U.P. and others before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Badaun who after hearing the parties, recorded the finding that the present complaint is barred by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. and set aside the order dated 6-6-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and allowed the revision of the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. Hence, the present revision before this Court by the revisionist challenging the order dated 1-6-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Badaun.
It has been further contented by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the lower revisional court illegally set aside the order of the Magistrate on the ground that the provision of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. is attracted in the present case though there is no such applicability of the said provision in the present case.
He further urged that the forgery document was committed by the accused persons much before the filing of Suit (Case No. 5 of 2000) before the Revenue Court and there was no bar of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. In this respect he placed reliance of the judgement of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court page 1121, Sachidanand Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar and another and also the judgment of this Court reported in 2000 All JIC 362, Allahabad High Court, Bahadur Vs. Chandra Bhushan and another in which it was held that Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was not applicable to a case where forgery of documents was committed before it was produced before the Court.
On the other hand, Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 has argued that the order passed by the lower revisional court is in consonance with law and no interference is called for by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
Having considered the submissions advanced of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the lower revisional court by passing the impugned order dated 1-6-2002 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as in the instant case the complaint was not barred by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. as the document in question was forged outside the court much before filing the same in the court by accused- opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. I find force in the submission advanced of the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding the non-applicability of the provision of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order dated 1.6.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Badaun, is set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the accused-opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 is hereby restored. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate, who may proceed in accordance with law.
The revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 10.4.2012
AK
