N.N.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS is complainant's revision against the order dated 18.02.1991 discharging the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 of offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B I.P.C.
(2.) THE petition was admitted on 19.04.1991. A report was made on 23.04.2002 about the missing of file. It has been reconstructed on the basis of available relevant records and documents. The original record from the trial Court has been summoned by the order of this court dated 3.09.2003. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that complainant- petitioner herein filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran on 29.04.1988 that he owned a shop at the Bus Stand, Bar on the southern side. There was a plot of first accused Mangilal. He was threatened of forcible ejectment from the shop by the respondent Mangilal. Thus, he filed a civil suit seeking injunction against forcible eviction from the suit premises, which was registered as suit No. 4/88 Om Prakash v. Mangilal and Others. The trial Court granted temporary injunction to maintain the status quo with respect of the suit property as on 27.04.1988. Defendant Mangilal filed a written statement taking plea that premises was rented out to the petitioner. He also produced a photostat copy of the rent note. It is alleged that said rent note was forged and fabricated. Complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the S.H.O., Police Station, Raipur. Police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. During investigation original rent note was recovered from the accused respondent Mangilal. Document was sent for examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and the opinion of the handwriting expert was also obtained. Deputy Director (Documents) of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan opined that the disputed signature stamped, encircled and marked as Q1 is forged signature. Thus, police laid charge-sheet against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused respondents for the said offences by order dated 2.1.1991. Accused respondents filed an application on 12.1.1990 stating that the document in question has already been tendered in evidence in civil court, as such, the complaint with regard to the said document could be filed only by the concerned court in accordance with the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate allowed the application by the impugned order dated 18.02.1991 and discharged the accused respondents of the aforesaid charges.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.;