The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on prima facie evidence of forgery and fabrication of documents, leading to the decision to proceed with framing charges under Sections 468/471 IPC.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. The instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 16.10.2014 of learned Special Judge CBI/ Addl. Sessions Judge, in CR No.25/2014 by which order dated 25.06.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate to frame charge under Sections 468/471 IPC against the respondent was set-aside. Revision petition is contested by the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The facts are not in dispute. Both the petitioner and the respondent who are real brothers are involved in dispute over a property bearing No.719, measuring 300 sq.yards (in short ‘suit property’) situated in the Revenue Estate of Mundaka, Delhi. The respondent – Mohinder Kumar Verma had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction bearing Suit No.29/1997 in 1997 acting as ‘attorney’ of his mother Smt. Kalawati claiming that she was owner-in-possession of the ‘suit property’. The respondent had filed a photocopy of the general power of attorney dated 03.01.1997 purportedly executed by his mother Smt.Kalawati by which he was authorized to file the said suit. He also placed on record photocopies of few documents which included Sale Agreement, Will and Receipts, etc. dated 25.10.1982 in support of ownership of his mother Smt.Kalawati. The petitioner – Harish Chander Verma put appearance in the said suit and relying on certain documents claimed to have purchased the suit property on 17.11.1982. The learned Civil Jude thereupon directed the respondent to produce Smt.Kalawati in person in the Court to ascertain whether she had authorised him to file the said suit. The respondent, however, did not produce her in the Court and opted to withdraw the suit by filing an application. It is informed that the Trial Court did not permit him to withdraw the suit. The respondent stopped appearing and finally the suit was dismissed with costs Rs. 2,000/- on 10.03.1999.

3. It is also not denied that on 05.09.1998, the respondent filed another suit bearing No.316/1998 for partition claiming that the suit property was owned by his late father Sh.Ramanand. It is relevant to note that Smt.Kalawati was impleaded as defendant No.3 in the said suit. The defendants therein contested the suit. In a joint written statement dated 22.09.1998, it was averred that the petitioner – Harish Chander Verma was the owner of the property. Kalawati did not mention about execution of any power of attorney either on 03.01.1997 or any other date in favour of the respondent.

4. The petitioner’s application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to initiate proceedings against the respondent was dismissed by the Trial Court observing that since forgery had been committed prior to the institution of the proceedings and only photocopies of the forged documents were used, private complaint in that regard was not barred. The petitioner thereafter, filed a private complaint for commission of offences punishable under Sections 181/182/193/196/199/200/468/471 IPC. Vide order dated 29.07.2000, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 468/471 IPC only. Cognizance for other offences was not taken for want of complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. The petitioner then filed review petition before the Civil Court in Suit No.29/1997 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC which was allowed and vide order dated 14.03.2001, Civil Court made a complaint against the respondent for commission of offences under Sections 181/182/193/196/199/200 IPC. It is still pending for disposal. In the private complaint in which the respondent was summoned under Sections 468/471 IPC, pre-charge evidence was produced. Vide order dated 25.06.2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered to frame charges under Sections 468/471 IPC. The order was challenged in the revision where the said order was set aside. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant revision peti