AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.B. Garg, J.
Mam Chand was owner of agricultural land measuring 37 kanals 15 marlas, situate. in village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukashetra. Originally, Lachhman Singh was tenant on this land and after his death on September 5, 1987, his three sons, namely, Mahal, Singh, Sarwan Singh and Karam Singh were in possession thereof. Main Chand instituted a suit for possession. It appears'' that the defendants in the aforesaid suit were claiming adverse possession. During the pendency of the civil suit, Pritam Singh Patwari was examined by Mahal Singh and two others and it came to the notice of the plaintiff as if there was manipulation of an entry of the words "bila lagan bavajah derina qabza".
Mam Chand plaintiff instituted a complaint for the offences under sections 465, 466, 471 and 120B ''read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and this complaint was dismissed by Shri. S.K. Kaushik, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Kurukshetra on February 16, 1989. ''However, a revision against this order has been accepted by Shri PC Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, on November 14, 1990, and aggrieved against it, the present petition has, been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been alleged that the complaint itself, is, barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that the plaint tiff him self had no right to institute the complaint and has referred to Chandrapal Singh and others v. Maharaj Singh and another, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1238, wherein it was observed that for the purpose of Section 195(2)(b) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a complaint by the Court is a precondition for taking cognizance of such offence by any Criminal Court and if this precondition is not satisfied the court will have no jurisdiction to take cognizance. This authority has ''also been followed in Surjit Singh v. Mohinder Singh Maur 1989(1) CLR 111. Where a complaint instituted by one Mohinder Singh Maur was quashed. Any authority to the contrary has not been referred to here. The conclusion is that the impugned short order dated November 20, 1990, of summoning the accused which otherwise is in compliance of the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kuruskhetra, is set aside and the complaint Annexure P1 is hereby quashed. The trial Court at Kurukshetra be informed.