AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Sinha, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
The facts of this case are that Ghanshyam Prasad Tripathi is landlord and applicant G.K. Shukla is the tenant. The allegations are that G.K. Shukla, without the consent of the landlord, moved an application before the Electricity Department for increasing the load of 560 Watts to 3 Kg. Watts and also deposited Rs. 1618/-. In order to carry out he also forged the signature of the complainant. The other accused, without any verification of photograph, granted increase of load. The complainant (Opposite party No. 2) also approached the Department but of no avail hence he filed a complaint. The complainant examined himself and witnesses, whereupon summoning order was passed on 23.7.2001. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was moved before this Court.
I have perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there was a civil litigation between the land lord and the tenant and this case cannot proceed. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the tenant has moved an application u/s 30 of the Act No. XIII of 1972 for deposit of the rent and no other litigation is pending. This pendency of the application u/s 30 of the Act 1972 does not involve or dispose of the question of alleged forgery. That is quite a different issue.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the complaint allegation, some employee of Electricity Department had informed about this forgery but he has not been examined. The employee of the Electricity Department may not come without the order of the court hence his examination at the stage of Section 202 Cr.P.C. was not possible. It is settled principle that while summoning an accused, the court has to see the prima facie evidence. The ''prima facie evidence'' means the evidence sufficient for summoning the accused and not the evidence which is sufficient to warrant the conviction. The inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. is limited only to ascertain of truth or falsehood of the allegation made in the complaint and whether on the material placed by the complainant a prima facie case was made out for summoning the accused or not.
In this case, the complainant (Opposite party No. 2) has made out a prima facie case for summoning of the accused. No ground is made out for quashing of the complainant hence application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.