Bhuwan Chandra Joshi vs Kirti Ballabh

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Application dated 10.4.2013 was sent to the Hon''ble Chief Justice, Uttarakhand invoking the powers of this Court u/s 340 Cr. P.C. by the applicant Prakash Chandra Bhatt, who is the real brother of Kirti Ballabh. This Kirti Ballabh instituted a Complaint Case No. 521/2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani wherein Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and three others were summoned to face the trial u/s 504, 506, 452 IPC. The cognizance was challenged by the accused persons u/s 482 Cr. P.C. and this Court vide its judgment and order dated 19.2.2013 quashed the complaint case and also the order of cognizance passed by the Magistrate besides the imposition of fine of rupees ten thousand upon the complainant Kirti Ballabh, which he has deposited on 11.3.2013.

Having lost his complaint against Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and others, his brother Prakash Chandra Bhatt has made this complaint addressed to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of the Court invoking powers as aforestated.

Contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant/complainant Prakash Chandra Bhatt is that Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and Shyam Singh Ladwal (Both were accused persons in complaint case no. 521/2010) fabricated a document showing their presence on 10th and 11th July, 2010 in the office of Block Education Officer, Pati, District Champawat and a certificate to that effect had been issued by Hari Ram Viswakarma, Block Development Officer. This certificate was filed in the petition of Section 482 Cr. P.C. as Annexure 9 in support of quashing of the proceedings.

After quashing of the aforesaid complaint case, the information was sought under the Right to Information Act, which suggests that 10th and 11th July 2010 were the holidays being second Saturday and Sunday. So, the office was closed. Moreover, Hari Ram Viswakarma himself was not present in the office as he was out of station and had gone to Dehradun in connection with some official work. So, if Hari Ram Viswakarma himself was out of station and had gone to Dehradun in connection with his official work, then he could not have issued such a certificate showing that Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and Shyam Singh Ladwal had worked in the office on 10.7.2010 and 11.7.2010 from 10 AM to 6 PM in his presence. Issuance of such certificate by Hari Ram Viswakarma, a responsible officer of the Education Department, is a patent lie. So, the inquiry should be initiated against Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and Shyam Singh Ladwal in light of the facts of the above noted forgery.

The Court would like to make it clear that quashing of that complaint case, as aforementioned, was not based on the premise of the documents showing the presence of these accused persons on 10th and 11th July, 2010 in the District Champawat, but it was on quite different footing. These documents were not considered by the Court even as supporting documents while passing the order of quashing of the complaint.

Now, as regards the initiation of the inquiry u/s 340 read with Section 195 Cr. P.C. is concerned, the position is well established and clear, as a five Judges Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, , has held that these provisions of Cr. P.C. could come into light for initiation of the inquiry only with respect to a document regarding which the forgery was committed while the document was in custodial legis. If the forgery (if any) has been committed either by Mr. Viswakarma or Bhuwan Chandra Joshi or Shyam Singh Ladwal while sitting in their office, then this Court cannot invoke its power u/s 340/195 Cr. P.C. The course is otherwise for the purpose.

So, this application is bereft of any merit. It is accordingly rejected.