IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.88 of 2004 Date of decision : March 5, 2008 Arvinder Kaur & another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Add. AG, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) A case was registered against the petitioners, on the allegations that they had forged a partnership dissolution deed, dated 31.12.1992, by interpolating a clause therein vide Para-5, to the effect that respondent No.2 Raj Kumari and one Ashok Kumar, partners in the dissolved firm, would be liable to discharge all the liabilities, incurred prior to the dissolution. The dissolution deed was sent to the expert, who gave the opinion that the aforesaid clause had been typewritten on a typewriter different from the typewriter on which the rest of the part of the dissolution deed had been typed. 2. The police submitted a cancellation report to the Judicial Magistrate, stating that after the execution of the dissolution deed there had been a civil litigation between the parties and in that Civil Suit the dissolution deed, in question, had been produced, but at that time Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… respondent No.2 did not take any action for the alleged forgery and thus there was delay of about six years on her part. It was also stated in the said cancellation report that the case had been registered only after a bank from which the firm, prior to its dissolution, had raised the loan, filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount and the interest accrued thereon, against all the partners of the dissolved firm. 3. The Magistrate did not agree with the report of the police for cancelling the case and passed a reasoned order holding that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. 4. I have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The dissolution deed was with petitioner No.1 Arvinder Kaur. The other petitioner Mangal Chand Khosla, who has also been summoned, as an accused, is the husband of petitioner No.1 Arvinder Kaur. Dissolution deed was supposed to be with petitioner Arvinder Kaur, she being one of the partners of the dissolved firm and she having been given the assets and liabilities of the firm after dissolution, per one of the clauses of the dissolution deed. There is no material on record suggesting that the other petitioner, Mangal Chand Khosla, who is the husband of petitioner Arvinder Kaur, had any role to play in the allegedly forgery. Apparently para 5 of the dissolution deed has been inserted after the typing of the rest of the part of the deed. A submission was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this part was added before the parties executed the deed. This fact can be ascertained only after evidence is adduced. At this stage there is no material on record to accept the plea. 6. In view of the abovestated position, the petition is partly allowed. The part of the order of the learned Magistrate so far as it …3… pertains to the summoning of petitioner No.2 Mangal Chand Khosla, as an accused, is set aside and the order so far as it pertains to the summoning of petitioner No.1 Arvinder Kaur, is upheld. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Record be returned to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, immediately. Petitioner No.1 and the State are directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 9th April, 2008. March 5, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J