SHREEMANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by petitioner has been filed for an enquiry under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr PC") for the offences committed by opposite party No. 2 referred to in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 195 of Cr PC by making false statement intentionally and by filing vakalatnama in civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 containing forged signature of petitioner of that case. The case of petitioner, in short, is that in support of petition of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 (Ram Ash ray Prasad Choudhary vs. Krishna Nandan Prasad Singh), opposite party No. 2 sworn an affidavit stating name of his father as K. S. Choudhary, resident of village -Rampur, Police Station -Dalsingsarai, District -Samastipur but the fact is that although there are five persons with the name of Ram Shankar Choudhary which is the name of opposite party No. 2 but none of them is son of K. S. Choudhary which is apparent from voters' list. The further case of petitioner is that opposite party No. 2 sworn affidavit supporting the petition filed by petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act that petitioner of that case was aged more than 102 years and he was doing pairvi of his case himself and was living with separation with all his sons and he was left with no reliable pairvikar. According to petitioner, this statement was false because opposite party No. 2 was in fact Karpardaz of petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 and was looking after the litigation which is apparent from the letter dated 11.11.1995 of opposite party No. 2 addressed to the eldest son of petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 (Annexure -2). Further, opposite party No. 2 deposed as a witness in eviction case No. 3 of 1990/ 14 of 1996 admitting therein that he is Karpardaz of Ram Ashray Prasad Choudhary, petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 (Annexure -3) and in another title suit No. 139 of 1987, opposite party No. 2 sworn -affidavit that he is Karpardaz of defendant who was petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 (Annexure -4) and petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 had deposed in title suit No. 4 of 1969 that opposite party No. 2 was his servant and was getting a sum of Rs. 50/ - as salary. Further, case of petitioner is that opposite party No. 2 was Advocate's Clerk of Shri Raj Nandan Prasad Singh, Advocate but since he was working contrary to rules framed by this Court, his licence as Advocate's Clerk was cancelled and he was debarred from working as Advocate's Clerk (Annexure -5). Opposite party No. 2 also filed vakalatnama in civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 containing forged signature of petitioner of that case because vakalatnama shows that it was signed by petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 on 8.7.1996 but on that day, petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 was bed ridden and was not in a position to sign the vakalatnama. On the aforesaid grounds, petitioner has prayed for holding an enquiry under Section 340 of Cr PC.

(2.) NOTICE to opposite party No. 2 was issued who appeared through his lawyer.

(3.) CIVIL Revision No. 1228 of 1996 has already been disposed of on 1.9.1997 and it was dismissed and the judgment is reported in : 1999 (2) PLJR 776. The petitioner has filed this application on 7.7.2000 meaning thereby that about three years after disposal of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996, the petitioner has filed the application under consideration. On the basis of admission of opposite party No. 2 or petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 that opposite party No. 2 was Karpardaz of petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 and he used to take steps in those cases, it cannot be said that opposite party No. 2 was also taking steps in civil revision No. 1228 of 1996. About putting forged signature of Ram Ashray Prasad Choudhary, who was petitioner of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 by opposite party No. 2 in a vakalatnama filed in that case, there is nothing on record to show that Ram Ashray Prasad Choudhary ever raised any objection that the vakalatnama filed in civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 showing his signature in fact does not contain his signature and signature was forged on that vakalatnama. As stated above, petitioner has not made it clear that how he is concerned with civil revision No. 1228 of 1996. Besides this, the record of civil revision No. 1228 of 1996 is traceless and in absence of the original affidavit and vakalatnama which were filed in that case on behalf of petitioner of that case, the allegation against opposite party No. 2 cannot be verified and holding an enquiry under Section 340 of Cr PC will be a futile attempt. I, therefore, find no merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed.