HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a complaint under Sections 198, 199, 463, 468 and 471 IPC against Major P.C. Bundela the present petitioner and Miss Divya v. Shah, respondent No. 2 alleging that her father Shri Surinder Singh Samra divorced her mother on 18.12.1977 and thereafter as he did not keep good health and required medical attention became dependent on one lady Dr. Smt. Satya Chawla. He died in October, 1987 and taking advantage of the same Dr. Satya Chawla got his house No. 3285, situated in Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, transferred in her name on the basis of a forged Will dated 7.6.1981 by presenting the same in the Estate Office, Chandigarh, without impleading the complainant and her brother as parties. The father of the complainant also possessed numerous shares of various companies and in order to enough the valuable securities at the earliest she distributed those shares to her relations. Major P.C. Bundela, who was a close relative of Dr. Satya Chawla, also came in possession of share certificates from her. He presented the share transfer forms through his agent on 17.11.1988 and 15.12.1988 by forging the signatures of her father on transfer from and by getting the same attested in connivance with respondent No. 2 who was a Notary Public at Bombay. These share transfer forms were attested as a witness by one Balwinder Singh, a resident of Chandigarh. The petitioner received payment of Rs. 1,83,000/- through a cheque with respect to the shares.
(2.) PRELIMINARY evidence was recorded in the case and after perusing the same the trial Court concluded that there was no ground to presume the commission of offence by respondent No. 2, who was Notary Public at Bombay and has simply attested some documents about the transfer of shares but there were reasonable grounds to presume the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 199, 420, 468 and 471 IPC by Major P.C. Bundela. Vide Order dated 30.4.1991 he was summoned to face trial. Major P.C. Bundela has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint and summoning order issued against him as well as the proceedings arising out of the same. He alleged that under Section 125 of the Army Act when Criminal Court and Court Martial each have jurisdiction in respect of an offence, it shall be in the discretion of the authorities mentioned in the Section to decide before which Court the proceedings are to be instituted. The Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of an offence in respect of a person subject to the Army Act unless he is moved thereto by a competent Military Authority. In the instant case the Magistrate had not been moved to take cognizance of the offence by a competent Military Authority nor he had recorded reasons for taking cognizance of the offence without being moved thereto by the Military Authority. He further alleged that the signatures of the transferer had been attested by respondent No. 2 on 2.10.1988 and thereafter the transfer forms were submitted to the Company for transfer. On 2.10.1988 he was not present in India. The previous complaint filed by respondent No. 1 had been dismissed and second complaint on the same facts was not competent without any fresh material. The transfer forms did not contain his signatures and he was not involved in any manner with the transfer of the shares. He also denied having received any payment on the basis of a cheque dated 15.2.1990 and contended that the shares had not been transferred by the company so far.
(3.) IN the return filed by respondent No. 1 it was maintained that provisions of Section 125 of the Army Act were complied with. She had approached the GOC-in-Command on 6.7.1990 to take action against the petitioner as he was the competent authority to decide whether a Criminal Court should proceed against the petitioner or not and he sent letter Annexure R/1 asking the respondent to proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner had been summoned, as prima-facie case was made out against him and there was no ground to quash the summoning order. If no offence was made out then the petitioner was likely to be discharged by the trial Court. It was asserted that Dr. Satya Chawla gave shares worth lacs to the petitioner who forged the signatures of Shri Surinder Singh Samra deceased and sold the shares and got a Bank of India, Bombay Stock Exchange Cheque No. 822466 dated 15.2.1990 for Rs. 1,83,000/-. He masterminded the operation for the sale of shares and committed offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.;