Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh vs Kewaljit Singh And Another on 11 July, 2022
262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-17-2022
Date of Decision: 11th July, 2022
Ajaib Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Kewaljit Singh and another
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
AVNEESH JHINGAN , J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner was selling his agriculture produce through
respondent No.1 who was working as a Commission Agent in name and
style of M/s Bhullar and Brothers, Grain Market, Khamanon. Cross suits
for recovery were filed by the petitioner and respondent No.1. In the suits,
original daily book having entries of transactions with signatures of
petitioner was produced by respondent No.1. It was claimed that each entry
was signed by the petitioner in presence of respondent No.1. The signature
on one entry was disputed by the petitioner. It was alleged that said entry
was forged. An application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed for
registration of the case. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and
suit of respondent No.1 was partly decreed. The litigation between the
parties was decided in a Regular Second Appeal by this Court and it was
held that respondent No.1 was not able to prove the entry disputed by the
petitioner. The prayer for registering a case under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was
rejected vide order dated 9th March, 2016.
2. Aggrieved of the order, an appeal was filed, which was
dismissed on 6th January, 2020.
1 of 4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the daily book
produced was in the possession of respondent No.1 and there was a report
of handwriting expert that the signature on the entry was not of the
petitioner.
4. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce the para 6 of
the Appellate Order:-
" I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the record of the case. The
application was filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for
registration of the case under Section 420, 465, 466,
467, 471 of IPC against the respodents for forging the
entry Ex.D-9 and it was alleged that the said entry was
declared to be forged, by Hon'ble High Court. The
perusal of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court
in RSA No. 3439 of 2007, shows that nowhere the entry
has been held to be forged and merely it has been
stated that respondent could not prove the said entry.
Moreover, as per Section 340 of Cr.P.C., the
proceedings can be initiated after holding enquiry if in
the opinion of the Court it is expedient in the interest of
justice to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. No
allegation was levelled that the alleged forgery was
committed while the document was already filed in the
Court. Even otherwise merely because one of the entry
in the account book could not be proved by the
respondents that by itself will not lead to the conclusion
that the same was forged especially in view of the fact
that the petitioner has not been able to show that any
Court gave specific finding that the said entry was
forged and fabricated.
Thus, keeping in view above, trial court
rightly held that court is not bound to make complaint
in the present case only because one of the entry in the
account book was not found to be trustworthy."
2 of 4
5. In Appeal (crl.) 402 of 2005, titled as Iqbal Singh Marwah
and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, the Supreme Court
held as under:-
"18. In view of the language used in Section 340
Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding
commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as
the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion
that it is expedient in the interest of justice." This shows that
such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice
requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint,
the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a
finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of
justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences
referred to in Section 195(i)(b). This expediency will normally
be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of
injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or
forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact,
such commission of offence has upon administration of
justice."
6. In litigation between parties, no Court had recorded a finding
that entry was forged. Mere failure of respondent No.1 to prove an entry in
itself would not be enough to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
7. Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna
Kumar Pandey, 2020(1) Ori. Law Rev. 246 held as under:-
"8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or
Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C,, 1973 is limited to the
extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety
of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The
revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any
proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in
a number of cases, the purpose of this revisionsal power is to set
3 of 4
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law."
7. The scope of interference in revision proceedings is limited.
No case is made out for interference in the present case as there is no
factual or legal error in the finding recorded by the Appellate Court.
8. The petition is dismissed.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN )
JUDGE
th
11 July, 2022
Parveen Sharma
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable Yes
4 of 4
