M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) None appeared for the petitioners. The impugned order and the record of the lower Court were examined and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard.
(2.) On 3.8.1978 Bati Lal respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Addl. Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City with the allegations that in a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, filed by the said respondent's grandfather against one Pyarey Lal and his son Ramesh in the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Gangapur City, Manohari petitioner had helped Bati Lal respondent's grandfather, that after the successful examination of that suit in favour of respondent's grandfather, Manohari petitioner began to demand a certain part of the land as his reward but since respondent's grandfather did not accede to such an unjust demand, Manohari petitioner, in connivance with other petitioners, made a false bond or pronote on 10.7.1976 purporting to represent that Manohari petitioner had advanced a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Bati Lal respondent as loan and on the basis of such false document filed an application in the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Gangapur City under the provisions of Rajasthan Debt Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of Rs. 25,000/-. The said application was reported to be still pending before the Debt Relief Court when the criminal complaint was filed by Bati Lal respondent against the petitioner. The alleged false document was also stated to have been filed in the Debt Relief Court in the course of the proceedings before that Court. The complaint was forwarded for investigation to the Dy. S.P. Gangapur City who, in turn, directed the SHO Police Station Gangapur City for registering a case for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, IPC and holding investigation according to law. The SHO registered Crime No. 264/78 under sections 420, 468, 471, IPC.
(3.) In the course of the investigation of the case so registered on the complaint of Bati Lal respondent against the petitioners the SHO appears to have approached the Debt Relief Court to hand over the original alleged false document to him for comparison of Manohari petitioners signatures thereon with his admitted signatures. The Debt Relief Court rejected the prayer of the SHO who thereupon submitted a Final Report No. 176/78 to the Magistrate.;