SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J. - (1.) The legal conundrum created by two orders passed on the same day in two Criminal Revision Petitions by the same Judge has given rise to the present appeals. The original appellant, Shrimati Shyam Lata claimed to be the owner and in possession of Shop No.54/1, Mohalla West Rajputana, Rampur Road, Main Bazar, Roorkee. Shrimati Shyam Lata alleged that her real brothers, viz., Arun Kumar Sharma and Subodh Kumar Sharma, the first two respondents had evil designs on her shop and on 24.5.2004 confronted the appellant with the threat to either sell the shop to them or sign the rent receipts. On the appellant's refusal on that date, which was also so on 2.6.2004, they threatened and abused her and further manhandled her. It is alleged that the brothers prepared a fictitious rent receipt by forging thereon the signatures of the appellant and left a photocopy of the same at the appellant's house with the view to lay a false claim of tenancy. The appellant gave a written complaint to the SSP, Haridwar on 2.6.2004 in respect of the incident and a case was registered, being Case Crime No.85/2004 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') at Gang Nahar, District Roorkee on 4.6.2004.
(2.) The second respondent, Arun Kumar Sharma, on the other hand, filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.78/2004 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Roorkee for permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from evicting him from the premises, claiming himself as a tenant of the shop on the basis of what the appellant alleges to be a forged rent receipt referred to aforesaid.
(3.) The Case Crime No.85/2004, was investigated and the Investigating Officer (for short 'IO') applied to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for sending the original rent receipts filed in the court to an expert for comparison of signatures of the appellants with the signature on the alleged forged rent receipt filed by respondent No.2 in the court. This application was, however, turned down on 6.8.2004 by the learned Civil Judge but a modified relief was granted for permission to take photographs of the signatures on the receipt by a handwriting expert for the purposes of comparison. The handwriting expert from the Forensic Laboratory, Agra reached the Court of the Civil Judge, Roorkee on 14.9.2004 to take the photographs of the signature on the receipt but it is alleged that the Civil Judge refused permission to take photographs of the signatures. Consequently the IO submitted a final report on 29.4.2005 in the criminal case stating that in the absence of permission to get the signatures, there was no evidence to find that the signatures were forged as they could not be compared.;