Criminal Misc. No. 131-MA of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 5860 of 2011 & Crl. Misc. No. 131-MA of 2011 Date of decision: 11.07.2011 Devi Dayal ..... Applicant/appellant. Versus Krishan Lal Vadera and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. -- Vijender Singh Malik, J. Crl. Misc. No. 5860 of 2011 This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons given in the application, the delay of 06 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Disposed of. Criminal Misc. No. 131-MA of 2011 2 Criminal Misc. No. 131 -MA of 2011 Devi Dayal, complainant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has filed this appeal before us against the judgment dated 01.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial court' ) whereby the complaint of the appellant for offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed. Alongwith the grounds of appeal, an application under section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant. The case of the appellant set up before learned trial court, in brief, is as under:- The appellant is a permanent resident of Panipat and is proprietor of M/s Durga Foundary, Industrial Area, Panipat. Shri Krishan Lal Vadera, respondent no.1 had business dealings with the appellant. Respondent no.1 used to purchase goods from the appellant and for the same, he was liable to pay a sum of ` 2,43,037.99 paise alongwith interest. As he failed to clear the dues, the appellant had to file a civil suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount. After a long time of the pendency of the civil suit in the court, the parties came to Criminal Misc. No. 131-MA of 2011 3 terms, under which respondent no.1 agreed to pay whatever amount the appellant would demand, having his son in his lap in a temple. The appellant demanded a sum of ` 5,85,890/- in the aforesaid manner in a temple. Respondent no.1 had placed a cheque of the said amount at the feet of the deity. Though respondent no.1 tried to back out of the aforesaid compromise, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat, decreed the suit, as per the statements of the parties. Respondent no.1 got published a false story in Dainik Bhaskar, Panipat in collusion with Ramesh Chander Aggarwal, Editor of the same, to spoil the image of the appellant, for which a separate complaint was filed, which was pending before learned trial court. Respondent no.1 in collusion with his son Deepak Vadera, respondent no.2 fabricated false evidence in the shape of gate passes to prove return of goods worth ` 2,27,000/- to the appellant to put up false defence to the recovery suit. The gate passes are alleged to have been forged and fabricated with a view to cause unlawful loss to the appellant. They also used those documents in the civil suit claiming them to be genuine documents. When the police at Police Station Model Town Panipat refused to register a case against the respondents, the appellant came to learned trial court by way of this complaint. Criminal Misc. No. 131-MA of 2011 4 Taking preliminary evidence, the respondents were summoned to stand trial for the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking pre-charge evidence, charge had been framed against the respondents for the said offence, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As no evidence was produced by the appellant thereafter and no request came from the respondents for further cross-examination of the witnesses, examined in pre-charge evidence, the accused were examined in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they have denied the truth of the evidence coming against them. They produced some documents in their defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the complaint vide judgment dated 01.10.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has come up by way of this appeal and has sought leave to appeal by moving a separate application. We have heard Shri Sandeep Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record carefully. Criminal Misc. No. 131-MA of 2011 5 The suit for recovery brought by the appellant against the respondents had been decreed in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The mode and manner of compromise arrived at between the parties is not in controversy in this appeal. Respondent no.1 defended the claim brought by the appellant against him and had tendered some documents in his defence. The evidence of the parties was not completed before the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. There was no occasion for the civil court to give a finding on the genuineness or otherwise of those documents. Admittedly, no application was moved by the appellant before the civil court under section 340 Cr.P.C. claiming the said documents to be fabricated ones. He did not insist upon the civil court to determine the said question before the decision of the suit in terms of the compromise. So no finding about the nature of those documents had come from the court before whom they had been filed. The only evidence brought by the complainant to prove the documents to be fabricated and forged ones is the statement of the complainant himself. His statement is not sufficient to prove those documents to be forged or fabricated. The persons, who had prepared those documents and whose Criminal Misc. No. 131-MA of 2011 6 signatures appeared thereon have not been examined by the appellant in this case. So the bald statement of the appellant made before learned trial court in the complaint case brought after getting the suit decreed on the strength of a compromise, could not be held sufficient to prove the alleged documents to be forged and fabricated documents, the use of which could attract the offence claimed by the appellant to have been committed by the respondents. No ground is, thus, made out to grant leave to file an appeal. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, the instant application is dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA) (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE JUDGE 11.07.2011 dinesh