Crl.Misc. No.A. 344-MA of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.A. 344-MA of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: JULY 21, 2010 Jagdeep Kaur .....APPLICANT Versus Virdevinder Singh ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL --- Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the applicant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Crl.Misc.No.15137 of 2010 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 142 days in filing the appeal with application for grant of leave to file an appeal. After hearing the counsel for the applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 142 days in filing the appeal as well as the above-said application is condoned. Application is disposed of. Crl.Misc.No.344-MA of 2010 Complainant Jagdeep Kaur has filed the instant application under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C. seeking permission for special leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 18.5.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Crl.Misc. No.A. 344-MA of 2010 (O&M) -2- Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, whereby both the respondents accused have been acquitted from the charges framed against them under Sections 419/420/467/468/120-B IPC. In the present case, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against her only son alleging therein that he had filed a civil suit for declaration against her claiming himself to be owner in possession to the extent of 1/89 share of land measuring 27 bighas 5 biswas situated in village Bhanbhauri. In that suit, he got filed a written statement on behalf of the complainant admitting the claim of the plaintiff under her forged signature, whereas the complainant never signed the said written statement. It was further alleged that she never engaged Shri Dhiraj Sood as her counsel nor he made any statement before the Court admitting the claim of her son. But later on when she came to know about the aforesaid fact, she moved an application in that suit by engaging a different counsel that she never filed a written statement or engaged the counsel. The accused did not come present in that suit and then the said suit was dismissed in default. By making these allegations, it was alleged that the accused had committed the offence of forgery and cheating. At a later stage, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Roshal Lal Sood, Advocate, who filed the written statement on her behalf in that suit. Against both the accused, the charges were framed under Sections 419/420/467/468/120-B IPC. In support of her case, the complainant examined herself as CW-3, Dr. Atul Kumar Singla as CW-1 and Shri Gandhi Singh, Advocate, who subsequently filed the application. She also examined Shri Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as CW-4 and Shri Om Crl.Misc. No.A. 344-MA of 2010 (O&M) -3- Parkash, Reader of the Court as CW-6. After closure of the post charge evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the incriminating evidence put against them, and pleaded innocence and false implication in the same. However, in defence, the accused examined Ravinder Singh as DW1 and Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert as DW-2, and thereafter the accused closed their evidence. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the impugned judgment. After considering the evidence led by both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the complaint while coming to the following conclusions. Firstly, that in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C., no cognizance of the complaint made by the complainant can be taken because the alleged forgery was committed in the Court and the Court did not file or authorise to file the complaint. Secondly, an FIR was registered at Ludhiana against the respondent on the similar allegations and in that case the respondent was acquitted three years after the instant complaint was filed. Thirdly, the complainant had failed to prove that Special Power of Attorney and written statement were not signed by her, and the evidence of PW5-Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting Expert, who proved his report Ex.PW5/1, has not been relied upon in view of the contradictory report (Ex.D1) given by DW2-Dr. Inderjit Singh. It has been found that Navdeep Gupta (PW5) in his report, compared the signatures from the photo-stat copy. Therefore, it could not be held that the disputed writings were compared with the contemporaneous admitted writings. Therefore, no definite conclusion could be arrived at whether the document was forged or not. Crl.Misc. No.A. 344-MA of 2010 (O&M) -4- In the present case, the suit filed by the respondent (son of the complainant) was never decreed. It was dismissed in default. Therefore, no harm was caused to the complainant. Secondly, the suit was with regard to only 1/89 share of land measuring 27 bighas 5 biswas. This is a meager piece of land. Thirdly, the suit was dismissed in default on 18.10.1996 and after dismissal of the suit, the complainant did not move an application before the Court for taking action against the respondent with regard to forging of her written statement or impersonation by somebody. Rather, she preferred the instant complaint on 9.12.1999, after a gap of three years and two months. Further, if the complainant was impersonated by somebody else, then only the Court can take cognizance only on the complaint of the Court. In our opinion, Section 195 Cr.P.C. is a bar not only to the Court taking cognizance of the offence, but even to the investigation by the police. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid finding and these facts, we are not inclined to grant special leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal. In our opinion, from the evidence available on the record, no other conclusion, as framed by the trial Court, can be arrived at. Hence, the application is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 21, 2010 ( MOHINDER PAL ) vkg JUDGE