- (1.) It appears that Manmohan Singh petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against one Bhupinder Singh, Shamsher Singh, Advocate, and Rehabilitation Department, regarding his title to property described as bungalow No. 159-B situate at Ferozepur Cantonment. The suit was dismissed in default on March 5, 1982. In that suit, the petitioner produced the original sale deed dated March 17, 1979, registered on March 30, 1979 regarding the said bungalow. In 1984, the petitioner filed a second civil suit against Union of India, Shamsher Singh, Advocate, and Ferozepur Cantonment Board. One of the reliefs sought in the second suit was a perpetual injunction against Shamsher Singh restraining him from raising any construction on any part of bungalow No. 195-B. Along with second suit, the petitioner filed a certified copy of the sale deed dated March 17, 1979. The measurement of the land covered by the aforesaid bungalow was mentioned 41 ft. x 36 ft. in the certified copy of the sale deed. It appears that the petitioner got summoned the records of the earlier suit containing the original sale deed, in order to prove the execution of the sale deed. At that stage it was discovered that the measurements of the plot covered by the bungalow had been changed from 41 feet to 141 feet and from 36 feet to 186 feet in the original sale deed. On the aforesaid alterations having been noticed, Shamsher Singh, Advocate, lodged First Information Report with the police on November 23, 1984, alleging offences under Sections 420/465/467/471 IPC.
(2.) After investigation, the police presented a final report against the petitioner. On hearing the parties and considering the documents filed with the final report, the learned Magistrate discharged the petitioner. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge. The revision was accepted and it was held that it could not be said for certain that the alleged forgery was committed when the original sale deed was in custody of the Court. It was possible that the alleged forgery had been committed before the document was filed in the Court. In that view of the matter, the order of discharge was set aside and case directed to be proceeded further according to law.
(3.) It is against the aforesaid order passed in revision that the present petition has been filed, seeking the quashing of the First Information Report as also the order passed by the revisional Court.;