I.A.ANSARI, J. - (1.) NONE has appeared on behalf of the parties concerned.
(2.) WITH the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.PC., the petitioner has sought for setting aside and quashing the First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), which has led to the registration of Dibrugarh Police Station Case No.636/2006 under Sections 465/468/199/200/34 IPC. The case of the accused-petitioner is, in brief, stated as under: (i) The accused-petitioner has been a process server in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. Title Suit, bearing No.97/2006, was instituted for ejectment of the tenants of the plaintiff and recovery of arrear rents, the defendant, in the suit, being one Tarsem Singh Bhogal, who has, eventually, lodged the FIR. The suit is still pending in the Court of Munsiff No.1 at Dibrugarh. (ii) The petitioner, as process server, was entrusted by the Civil Nazir to serve summons, on the complainant-informant, who was defendant in the said suit. The petitioner went to the residence of the complainant, called him through one of his employees and, thereafter, the complainant received the summons and put his signature thereon. (iii) The service report was accordingly submitted by the petitioner, in the said suit, which, in course of time, was decreed ex parte, on 28.09.2006, because the complainant did not appear to contest the suit. (iv) Later on, the complainant filed a petition, on 26.10.2006, under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to get set aside the ex parte decree, dated 28.09.2006, in Title Suit No.96/2006. The application, so made, gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No.62/2006. In the application, which so gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No.62/2006, the complainant, as defendant No.2, made a statement that he had never been served with summons. The plaintiff in the suit, however, contested the said application by contending to the effect, inter alia, that summons were duly served. (v) While the application, seeking to get set aside the ex parte decree, was so pending, as indicated above, defendant No.2 filed a complaint, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, which was sent by order, dated 28.11.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, to the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, to register a case and investigate the same. The investigating officer submitted a report, on 16.12.2006, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, stating to the effect that the allegations, made in the complaint, constituted a dispute of civil nature and that the subject-matter of the complaint already stood decided by the Court and the complainant, if aggrieved, can prefer appeal against the refusal to set aside the decree. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, sent back the complaint, on 22.12.2006, to the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, who, in turn, registered a case, namely, Dibrugarh Police Station Case No.363/2006, under Sections 465/468/199/200/34 IPC, which the present petitioner seeks to get set quashed, because it is against the order, dated 22.12.2006, aforementioned, the registration of the FIR and investigation that the present petition for quashing has been filed. While considering the present petition, it needs to be noted that it is the specific case of the complainant that he had not been served with summons and that his signature had been forged on the service report showing that summons had been received on him, as a defendant, in the said suit. The allegation of forgery, which was so made, could not have been said to be a subject-matter of purely civil nature. Commission of forgery is, indeed, an offence under the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) IN the circumstances indicated above, it was wholly illegal, on the part of the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, not to register a case on the basis of the complaint by declining to treat the same as FIR pursuant to the order passed, on 28.11.2006, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, therefore, committed no error of law in directing, on 22.12.2006, the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh, to register a case and this is precisely what has been done in the present case. As the complaint, which has given rise to the FIR, clearly contains statements, which, if assumed to be true, make out a case of forgery and fabrication of evidence, the registration of the FIR is not bad in law.;