CRLMC No.2042/2008 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C No.2042/2008 % Date of Decision : 03.07.2008 Shri Narender Singh ….… Petitioner Through: Mr.R.Kumar, Advocate. Versus The State through S.H.O. ......... Respondent Through : Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the State. CORAM :- * HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner has impugned the order dated 11th April, 2008 dismissing his revision petition under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code against the summoning order dated 21st June, 2007 passed in FIR No.363/2003, Police Station Malviya Nagar, under Section 493/376 of the Indian Penal Code. CRLMC No.2042/2008 Page 2 of 4 The petitioner is a process server and the allegations against him are that he did not serve the summons of a case pending between Smt.Indu Malhotra and Pankaj Malhotra on 5th November, 2001 and fabricated the report. The report given by the petitioner indicates that he had visited Smt.Indu Malhotra at 12 noon whereas Smt.Indu Malhotra being a Government servant was at her office and not at the address the summon was alleged to had been served at that time. The allegation against the petitioner is that he never served the summons but handed over the same to Sh.Pankaj Malhotra, her husband who fraudulently obtained the signatures of Smt.Indu Malhotra and the report of the service was fabricated by the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances it is apparent that there are specific allegations of fabricating the report on the summons of service at a time when the complainant was not present at her residence and being a Government servant was on duty. The fabrication of the report was not done in the Court. The Additional Sessions Judge has considered that fabrication was done in the summons issued by the Court and in the circumstances there was no bar on taking cognizance. CRLMC No.2042/2008 Page 3 of 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no cognizance can be taken except upon the complaint of the Court and has relied on (1998) 2 SCC 493, Sachida Nand Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar and Anr and 118(2005) DLT 329 (SC), Iqbal Singh Marwah & Ors. Perusal of the judgments relied on by the petitioner reflects that they are clearly distinguishable. In Sachida Nand Singh & Anr (Supra) it was held by the Apex Court that there is no bar under Section 195(1)(b) of taking cognizance of offence if the offence was committed before document was produced in the Court. Bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. would not apply where forgery of the said document was committed before the said document was produced in court. Admittedly the report on the summons issued by the family Court at Jaipur which was to be served on the complainant Smt.Indu Malhotra, was allegedly fabricated by the complainant at Delhi. Merely because the ex-parte decree against the complainant Smt.Indu Malhotra has not been set aside by the Court at Jaipur, it cannot be held that the allegation of fabrication and forging of the report by the petitioner has been adjudicated or a finding has been given in favor of the petitioner by a competent Court. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances I do not find any manifest error or illegality in the order of Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision of the petitioner, so as to entail interference in CRLMC No.2042/2008 Page 4 of 4 the present petition. Considering the totality of facts it also cannot be inferred that quashing of summoning order would secure the ends of justice. The petition, therefore, is without any merit and it is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the petition is not the final expression of any opinion on the merits of the case. July 3, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’