AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) The appellant has preferred the statutory appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 11th March, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (Fast Track Court No. VII), Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 97 of 2005 by reasons of which the petitions, filed by the appellant on 11th January, 2007 and 25th May, 2007 for issuance of a direction to defendant Nos. 2 to 6 to appeal before the court for taking their specimen signatures as also the petition filed on 20th November, 2007 for initiating a Miscellaneous Case have been rejected.
(2.) THIS Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17th July, 20078 had asked for a report from the office with respect to maintainability of criminal appeal against the impugned order dated 11th March, 2008 passed in Title Appeal No. 97 of 2005. Pursuant thereto, the office vide its report dated 28th July, 2008 and 31st July, 2008 has opined that if a petition under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enquiry is refused and/or allowed, an appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is considered to be maintainable. At the same time, the office has also reported that the application of the appellant, which has been refused, was not preferred under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus, the appeal preferred under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not maintainable. I have perused the impugned order dated 11th March, 2008 and have also considered the report of the office as well as the applicable provisions of law. It appears that a Misc. Case was filed to verify the genuineness of the signatures and to initiate a proper enquiry in respect of filing of Vakalatnama by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in Title Suit No. 252 of 2002. The allegation was that the same were forged and fabricated. The learned trial court after considering the materials and on perusal of the record opined that the Vakalatnama was filed on 24th February, 2003 in the said Title Suit and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have filed their Vakalatnama in the appeal on 2nd March, 2006 i.e. after a gap of three years and, thus, there was a chance of some difference in the signatures of respondent Nos. 2 to 6. It also opined that there was no reason or basis as to why others will sign over the Vakalatnama of respondent Nos. 2 to 6. In the aforesaid background, the prayer for issuance of a direction to defendant Nos. 2 to 6 to appear before the court for taking their specimen signatures and the petition filed on 20th November, 2007 for initiating a Misc. Case for enquiry were rejected.
(3.) THERE is no dispute with regard to the right of a statutory appeal as provided under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case an application to make a complaint under Sub -section (1) or Sub -section (2) of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is refused.;