Cr. M.P.(M) No. 51 of 2009. 3.9.2009 Present: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma counsel for the respondent. While disposing of the Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2002, this Court had come to the prima facie opinion that respondent Murli Ram is liable to be tried for committing an offence either of fabricating a false document or of committing perjury. Accordingly, notice was issued to him. The facts leading to the issuance of the notice were that a criminal case was lodged against Ajay Kumar and others on the complaint of one Shri Naresh Kumar. According to the complainant, he had been beaten up by Ajay Kumar and other co-accused. Murli Ram, present respondent, at the relevant time was the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. He signed memos Ext.PW-1/B, Ext.PW-1/C as witness. Ext.PW-1/B was a memo whereby the complainant had allegedly produced certain broken bottles before the police and the same were taken by the police on 30.5.2000. Ext.PW-1/C is a so called memo whereby the accused produced the iron rod. This court held that this document was virtually a confessional statement and could not be used against the accused. Murli Ram was also witness to this document. While appearing in Court the respondent admitted that he had signed these two documents, but according to him nothing was produced in his presence by the complainant Naresh Kumar or the accused Ajay Kumar. He further went on to state that none of the other witnesses who were signatories to the said documents were present. The respondent is a Pradhan and he had clearly admitted that no pressure was put on him by the police to sign the documents. This Court was prima facie of the opinion that a person holding the office of Pradhan should Cr. M.P.(M) No. 51 of 2009. not sign documents in such a casual manner which may lead to the conviction and incarceration of an accused. Verifying and signing such documents only at the asking of the police is a serious offence which may affect the administration of justice. Therefore, notice was issued to the respondent. Reply to the notice was filed and according to the respondent he had not made any false statement in Court. He stood by his statement made in Court but admitted that he had signed these documents in a casual manner but according to him he had no intention to fabricate any false documents. During the course of these proceedings, the respondent has expressed regret for any action which may amount to an offence and has prayed that lenient view of the matter may be taken and notice be withdrawn. One of the issues involved is whether the respondent should be allowed to go scot free. The respondent has now filed an undertaking that he shall not contest any elections to the post of public representatives. This undertaking is accepted. The respondent has also made donation of Rs.10,000/- to the Indian Red Cross Society, Distt. Unit Hamirpur. Both these action are totally voluntarily. Since the respondent-applicant has expressed sincere remorse, I feel that instead of lodging a criminal case against the respondent-applicant matter should be closed in view of the undertaking given by the respondent and the amount deposited by him in the Indian Red Cross Society. Notice issued is accordingly discharged. 3rd September, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge