MONJULA BOSE, J. - (1.) THE short point requiring determination in this application is whether the plea of the defendants in their written statement as also in the several affidavits filed in the interlocutory proceedings before this Court in Suit No. 939 of 1978 Mayapur Sree Chaitanya Math v. Tridandeeswami Bhakti Kusum Sraman Maharaj contending that the two deeds dated 7th July, 1976 are genuine documents and not liable to be set aside, makes the respondents or any of them liable for prosecution for perjury in an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The respondents before the Court are six in number of whom respondents 3 and 4 are admittedly not parties to the suit, and who have been charged in the petition with aiding and abetting the respondents in manufacturing false documents.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs -petitioners in their petition, shortly, is that the two alleged deeds of appointment dt. 7th July 1976 were not executed by Bhakti Vilas Tirtha and the said documents have been charged by the plaintiffs in Suit No. 939 of 1978 to be forged and fabricated documents, neither signed nor executed by the said executant held out and represented to be so after his death before the Registering Authority. It is contended that the documents were forged and brought into existence falsely with the fraudulent motive and intention to usurp the position of the Shebaits of the said deities with powers of management, administration, control and custody of vast and valuable debuttor properties including the temple Maths and residential houses dedicated to the deities. Reliance was placed upon a letter dt. Sept. 14, 1976 alleged to be addressed by the respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 2 recording that no deed was executed by Bhakti Vilas Tirtha before his death. It is contended that the respondents are guilty of having committed acts which are offences under the Indian Penal Code, particulars whereof are given in paragraph 24 of the petition. Reliance is also placed on the report of Sri A.R. Samasdar, Handwriting Expert and of the Forensic Laboratory of the Government of West Bengal indicating that the signatures appearing in the impugned deeds arc not the genuine signatures of the executant, and the reports were collectively marked 'F' and annexed to the petition. It is alleged that the respondents have committed an offence inter alia under Section 471 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and contended that respondents, (other than respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the Suit No. 939 of 1978) have knowingly produced the said two documents in connection with the aforesaid proceedings and as such it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence under Section 467 and 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code and a complaint be directed to be made accordingly. In the various affidavits -in -opposition filed by the respondents, it is urged that the application is thoroughly misconceived and mala fide requiring the same to be dismissed in limine. It was reiterated that the said Bhakti Vilas Tirtha had executed two deeds of appointment of shebaits, for Shree Chaitanya Math and Shree Chaitanya Research Institute on 7th April 1976 and the same were presented for registration on 5th and 8th Oct. according to law. It was particularly denied that any of the two deeds is forged and/or fabricated and/or not signed or executed by the executant. It is averred that the petitioners themselves had admitted the said two deeds of appointment of shebaits relating to shree Chaitanya Math, Mayapur and Shree Chaitanya Research Institute. Calcutta, in several meetings of shebaits attended by them and held on 25th Oct 1976. 31st Oct. 1976. 2nd Nov. 1976, 29th Nov. 1976 and 10th July 1977. Reliance was also placed upon the report of Handwriting Expert. Mr. P. Chatterjee. where he opined that the signatures were genuine. It was denied that the respondents or any of them are guilty of any offence or acts as alleged. The letter of 14th Sept. 1976 alleged to have been signed by the respondent No. 1 recording that there was no document executed by the said Bhakti Vilas Tirtha before his death is also denied, and contended that the contents of the letter are false and the same is a subsequently manufactured and fabricated document and the English signature appearing on the alleged letter of 14th Sept. 1976 is a manufactured and a fabricated signature of the Respondent No. 1. It is denied that the respondents knowingly produced any forged document in connection with any proceedings before this Court or it is expedient that any enquiry or complaint should be made. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to record that on 22.12.78 suit No. 939 of 1978 Mayapur Sree Chaitanya Math v. Tridandeeswami Bhakti Kusum Sraman Maharaj was instituted in this Court claiming inter alia the following reliefs: (a) Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters patent; (b) Leave under Section 92 of the C.P.C. (c) A declaration that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to II and the defendants Nos. 7 to II are the only members of the lawfully constituted Governing Body of the plaintiff No. 1 and as such are solely and exclusively entitled to remain in control, possession, custody, management and administration of [he plaintiff No. 1, all its temples. Maths, lands, buildings and other properties and offices including the said Sri Chaitanya Research Institute; (d) A further declaration, if necessary, that the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 have no right or title or interest over or in respect of the plaintiff No. 1 or its temples or Maths or lands or buildings or any other assets or offices of the said Sri Chailanya Research Institute and have no right to manage; (e) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and their servants or agents from: (i) Interfering in any way with the rights, powers and function of the said Governing Body of the plaintiff No. 1 in connection with the management. control, administration, custody and possession of the plaintiff No. 1 and its temples. Maths, lands, buildings, properties, assets and offices including the said Sri Chaitanya Research Institute; (ii) In any way interfering with the daily seva puja and the periodic festivals of the deities Sri Guru Gandharbika and Giridhari Jew; (iii) In any way interfering with daily seva puja and the periodic festivals of the deities Sri Guru Sri Guru Sunder Sri Radha Dayita Kunja Behari Jew located at No. 70B. Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta -26; (iv) Selling, letting out, encumbering, making any new construction upon or in any manner dealing with any of the properties, assets, lands, buildings and funds of the said Debuttor Estate including those of Mayapur Sree Chaitanya Math and Sri Chaitanya Research Institute; (f) A declaration that alleged deeds of appointment dated the 7th July, 1976 alleged to have been executed by Bhakti Vilas Tirtha Maharaj are void, inoperative ineffective and not binding on the plaintiffs including the said Mayapur Sri Chaitanya Math and the said Sri Chaitanya Research Institute; (g) If necessary a decree directing that the said two deeds of appointment to be delivered for cancellation and be cancelled; (h) An injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and each of them and their servants and agents from claiming or usurping the office of shebait or any other rights, or titles or interest by virtue of or under or in terms of the alleged two deeds of appointments, both dt. 7th July, 1976. (i) A further injunction in such other terms and to such other effect as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case; (j) If necessary a Receiver be appointed; (k) Costs; (l) Further or other reliefs. After several interlocutory proceedings, including an application for revocation of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, a Division Bench of the Court held this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings as the suit was a suit for land and accordingly the plaint filed in this Court was directed to be returned for presentation to the appropriate Court. Admittedly on 2.6.83 the suit was filed in the Alipore Court where the suit is now pending.
(3.) MR . Hirak Mitra, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. puts a fetter on initiation of criminal proceedings in any Court other then the Court before which the alleged forged documents are produced and or given in evidence, as it is that court alone which is competent to initiate proceedings contemplated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. In considering an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. the Court is required to be satisfied that it is both expedient and in the ends of justice, that any preliminary enquiry be held and/or before recording any findings to the effect that an offence has been committed. The words 'appears to the Court' appearing in the said Section 340 merely require prima facie material, which indicate the likelihood of the offence being committed, in support of which contention he cites: - Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi v. Sudheswari Devi reported in : AIR1966All64 M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras reported in : [1954]1SCR1144 and Indranarayan v. Roop Narayan reported in : AIR1971SC1962 . In the instant case there is more prima facie material before the Court to indicate and or arouse its suspicion that the document is a forged one in as much as there is no explanation as to why two separate deeds should have been executed by the executant Tirtha Bilash on the same day. nor any indication on the face of the deeds as to whether the same was drafted by any lawyer. No explanation at all is forthcoming as to by whom and or on whose instruction such deeds were drafted. A serious comment is also made of the fact that the two attesting witnesses to the deed, the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. are not connected with the Math as also the fact that the said deeds were registered on two different dates more than 2 months alter the death of the executant.;