HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 719 of 2001 Decided on: 18.11.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Ravi Kumar ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Praneet Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kasauli at Solan, dated 17.7.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that on 7.9.1993, a written complaint was received from Ravi Kumar, respondent, alleging that he had been allotted house No.14 in his own name and house No.16 has been allotted in the name of his brother Parshotam Dass in Sector 6, Parwanoo. It was alleged that one Dev Raj Gautam had got the possession of house No16 and one Darshan Singh got the possession of house No.14 and they occupied both these houses allotted to the complainant/respondent and his brother, by using fraudulent means. It was _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - alleged that that the possession of these houses should be got delivered to the respondent and his brother, on which complaint, a case was registered and it was found that the respondent Ravi Kumar and his brother were allotted Houses No.14 and 16 at Parwanoo. The respondent Ravi Kumar entered into a hire purchase agreement on his own behalf as well as on behalf of his brother Parshotam Dass by signing the agreement on behalf of his brother and took possession of the houses. It was also found that on 12.10.1991, the respondent got an affidavit and agreement prepared in which the houses were given to Darshan Singh and Dev Raj by taking Rs.10,000/- from them and the remaining instalments were also to be paid by the said Darshan Singh and Dev Raj. It was further found that respondent made a false complaint as against Darshan Singh and Dev Raj after taking money from them for the houses that they had prepared false papers and had taken illegal possession of those houses from the respondent and his brother. On further investigation, it was found that the agreement made by the respondent and his brother Parshotam Dass were forged one and hand writing and specimen of signatures of Dev Raj and respondent were taken during the investigation. It was found that the hire purchase agreement on behalf of Parshotam Dass was signed by respondent himself and in regard to the agreement executed by respondent, he had not himself signed the agreement but got the same signed from another person. Thus, a prima facie case was made out as against the respondent, on which a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondent. The learned trial Court framed charges against the respondent under the above mentioned Sections and tried the respondent, leading to his acquittal. - 3 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the report was lodged by the respondent himself that the agreements were forged by Dev Raj and Darshan Singh and they have illegally taken the possession of the houses from him though the facts showed that the hire purchase agreement was entered into by the respondent himself on his behalf as well on behalf of his brother Parshotam Dass and the possession was given to those persons. The aggrieved persons could have been said to be either Darshan Singh or Dev Raj, who were alleged to have taken illegal possession from the respondent but there is neither any complaint nor there is any investigation in this regard and though the respondent himself was the complaint and was allegedly the aggrieved person, but it was found that he had forged the documents on his behalf as well as on behalf of his brother for which the case was investigated and the case was filed as against him. In regard to civil remedy, if any, available to Dev Raj and Darshan Singh, they have a separate remedy to file civil suit, if so advised, but for the present dispute, it has to be established as to whether the respondent had forged the documents or not, as alleged in the challan filed as against him. Coming to the evidence, I may make a reference to the most material witnesses examined in the case. PW-7 Dev Raj is the person who could be said to be aggrieved since an agreement was entered into with him, but the allegations were made that he had illegally taken the possession. In his statement, he has stated that he was called by the respondent to Chandigarh, he paid Rs.10,000/- to the respondent and an affidavit and agreement was prepared. He further stated that on the same day, the respondent sold the house for Rs.10,000/- to one Darshan Singh and the house was in his - 4 - possession. He has clearly stated that he had purchased the house from Parshotam Dass, but the keys were given by the accused and the money was also accepted by the accused. He has clearly stated that no fraud was committed with him by the respondent or any person. A perusal of his statement shows that the papers for the sale of the house were purchased by him on behalf of Parshotam Dass, who was not present there. He has also stated that when he purchased those papers, even respondent was not present there. He has also admitted that no talks were held with Parshotam in regard to the sale of the house. Thus, his statement does not show that the respondent had forged any documents or committed any forgery with him. He admitted in cross examination that he had not purchased any house from the respondent though the agreement was entered into with Parshotam and the respondent and has admitted the affidavit as correct bearing his signatures. PW-12 Darshan Singh is the other person who is alleged to have purchased the house from the respondent. He has stated that an agreement was prepared and the deal was settled for Rs.10,000/-. He further stated that the complaint was made by the respondent to the police since he did not want to give him the house. He has stated that the affidavit and other documents were taken in possession by the police vide recovery memo. He simply stated that the respondent had lodged a false complaint against him to defame him, but he never stated that any document was forged by the respondent or signatures of Parshotam Dass, the brother of the respondent, were forged by the respondent. PW-15 Parshotam Dass, who is the brother of the respondent, has stated that he and his brother filled application forms for allotment of house from the Housing Board and house No.16 was allotted in his name while house No.14 was allotted in the name of his brother. He further stated that they were in - 5 - respective possessions of these houses. He has admitted that the application was submitted by him. He further stated that the respondent has produced agreement to the police and he also admitted his signatures therein. He has further stated that Dev Raj has also signed in his presence. He simply stated that Dev Raj had admitted that all these documents were forged by him, but the said Dev Raj is not an accused before me nor his act, if any, in regard to forgery, is being proved in this case. This witness has nowhere stated that the respondent forged his signatures or took possession wrongly or sold the houses wrongly. The statements of other witnesses examined by the prosecution and as discussed by the learned trial Court, are not material. There is no aggrieved person in the present complaint and the respondent, who made the complaint, has been made an accused, while none of the witnesses examined has stated that there signatures were forged by the respondent at any time. No such document has been proved on record to show that the signatures on the agreement or affidavit proved in evidence were forged by the respondent. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. and the same is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. November 18, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.