Azad Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
!
! "# $ % $ & '
( &)*+,- ! ./$0 - ."1&") +")$",
!
""""
."1&") +")$",2.! 3&",4 # Through the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 15.9.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri in Criminal Complaint No. 308 of 2013 dated 23.02.2013 and order dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri. 2.
The brief facts emerging from the record are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 419, 420, 406, 407, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of IPC which came up for consideration before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri. The petitioner/complainant filed complaint against respondents on two counts namely (i) Sat Parkash has forged and issued receipt Mark A and Dariya Singh has signed the Will in the capacity of Numberdar whereas he was never designated as Numberdar. Other respondents were made party in the ground that they are beneficiary of aforesaid Will. The complainant to corroborate his case examined seven witnesses i.e. CW-1 to CW-7. Learned trial
court after scrutinizing the record and considering oral testimony of witnesses came to a conclusion that sufficient grounds are absent for summoning the accused. The court found that complainant has miserably failed to prove that Dariya Singh was never designated as Numberdar. The documents mark A and B are merely photocopies and complainant has failed to prove both these documents. The complainant has alleged that accused No. 1 and 2 deposed falsely in the proceedings of civil court and they forged receipts Mark A and B. The allegations of the complainant are that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have deposed falsely and fabricated the evidence in the civil proceedings but complainant opted to file complaint under Section 420, 468, 120-B IPC instead of filing complaint under Section 191, 193 of IPC.
3.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved from judgment of trial court preferred revision petition before Sessions Court which came up for consideration before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri who vide impugned judgment dated 15.12.2021 dismissed petition of the present petitioner holding that order passed by trial court does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity of any nature.
4.
The findings recorded by ASJ, Charkhi Dadri read as:- "
!
" # $$%&'( )**)*) +, "
- .
"
+
)*/)*0
# $ )*1 +, "
2 4&"5
- .
"
+
*6))*1
" # 01 )** +5
"
- .
"
+
70*%)*0 # %% )*0 +5
"
- .
"
+
))*8)*1 7
9
7
! ! !
!
!
7
:
!
!
; !
< !
!
"
!
:
,
:*
+ !
+ = <: = <:'
7(
:
!
+ !
+ = <:
= <:'
(
" !
!
+ = <: = <:'
(
!
!
!
!
7 7
:
!
!
; 7 !
< !
!
"
"
5.
$ % & $ ' ( ' &
)
# + ',-. /
/ '
,0# &!1
5 />"
#
#.*#//#2, 3)(
, "
0$8
? !
< !
;
@
"
067 !
;
!
(
!
< ! <
A &!1 / 4 B ?
4 '
8%"/%1 D8E( :
23 "
0$8 ,
! !"
0)$ :
203 ! F
;
G(
!
!
; , !
;
!
!
* '! !
F G F <
G,
H
( B
!
!
!
; A - &!1 /.
!
&
" ?5#.6-7-/8,#4
6 7 ,
;
"
!
I
!, !
;!
":
203 "
0$8
,
;
<
,
;
!
!
;
(
,
;
!
7
!
<
!,
;
(
!C
! ;
!
!
!
< !
! ;
(
!
,
! ; I
,
!
!
"
0$8203
,
; , '&!1 /
&= ? "
"
"
5#.6274/8429
7 D/ ( !
7>" #
J8%"/0C7&8% "81C8%"&)/0K !
!
,
;
(!
!
"
;
7
,
< ! "
4 B
?
4 '
J8%"/%1C7&8%"$1C8%"&161K
,
;
( !
F G F <
G7
!
,
!
!
:
,
.
!
&
!
" ?J7&81)"6//C281$3$"&0)K
; ! <
!
<
<
!
,
;
!
! A 6.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments while dealing with scope and powers of the appellate/revisionary courts in dealing with an appeal/revision against an order of acquittal has elucidated: #
' '
' )
8 $//
#.9- ( '
' )
'
- :
( ;
1;
1 ;
1 ; 1;
%1 (
'
)
;
1
' )
' ' '
, "
''99 2 :%2 ( (
;
92 9 ' ('
%
! <
' ('
%99 ( (
9 '
'9 ( 9 '
% '
99 ' (
9 '% 9
('
9:! $ 9
% ;
92 ' ('
2 (
9
<'
)
7.
In the present case, Civil Court as well Appellate Court has already declared 'Will' in question as genuine and valid, thus, there is no reason in criminal proceedings to doubt validity of Will, similarly, no finding qua validity of document mark 'A' and 'B' has been doubted in Civil Court, though civil dispute between the parties was pending. The petitioner did not disclose fact of pendency and thereafter, disposal of civil suit before trial Court, and revisionary Court has dismissed petition after noticing findings of Civil Court. 8.
In view of the above narrated facts, having regard to the findings recorded by trial court including accepted legal position, this Court is of the considered
= opinion that in the case at hand there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, this Court fully agrees with the finding recorded by trial Court. The impugned order being speaking, based upon correct appreciation of facts, applicable law & judicial precedents and well-reasoned needs no interference of this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
3 ."1&") +")$", 4 ./ 1- !
!
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No + =>?