The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence and reasoning before taking cognizance of alleged offences, as well as the need to reevaluate the material available and the need for further investigation.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. A complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by respondent No.2/ Chattar Singh S/o Jai Ram R/o 71, Village Hamayun Pur, New Delhi who has since passed away and is now represented by his two legal heirs i.e. Smt. Krishna and his wife and Smt. Risala his mother. In the complaint filed in the year 2003 Chattar Singh alleged that his grand-father Shri Gopal was the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No.42 measuring 6 Bighas and 4 Biswas within the revenue estate of village Hamayun Pur in the year 1950-51. Shri Gopal died on 1st December, 1953 leaving behind two sons namely Jai Ram and Sohan Lal. Jai Ram and Sohan Lal also died on 5th June, 1965 and 9th November, 1992 respectively. Chattar Singh claiming himself to be the legal heir of Jai Ram alleges that on 11th May, 2004 he came to know that the accused persons i.e. the three petitioners herein Prithi Pal Singh, Bhupinder Paul Singh and Jagjit Paul Singh all S/o late Pratap Singh filed some civil suit about the land noted above in the year 1979 claiming themselves to be rightful owner and claimants of all benefits of the said property. It is alleged that the petitioners prepared a forged sale deed in the year 1951 and got incorporated the mutuations of the land in their favour. It was the claim of Chattar Singh that the petitioners never remained in possession of the land in question and the thumb impression of his grand-father on the alleged sale deed was forged and fabricated.

2. On the directions of the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR No.551/2005 under Section 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC was registered at PS Sarojini Nagar. Pursuant to the investigation conducted a cancellation report was filed which was challenged by Chattar Singh by filing a protest petition. After hearing parties on the cancellation report, protest petition and with due notice to Chattar Singh/ the complainant, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 22nd November, 2010 passed the following impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners:

“22.11.2010

Present: Ld. APP for State

IO Inspector Mahabir Prasad in person

Complainant with counsel Sh. K.G. Chokar

Arguments on cancellation report heard. The IO and the learned APP has argued that before filing the cancellation report dated 14.09.2008, notice was issued to the complainant for providing any documents for comparison of thumb impression of grand father of complainant. Sh. Gopal with his purported thumb impression upon the sale deed in the name of Sh. Preet Pal Singh and others, however the complainant did not appear in response to the notice and did not produce any documents for comparison, hence there was no record for sending the documents to FSL for verification of thumb impressions and after investigation, collection of evidence from Delhi Archives about the old sale documents (registered on 26.10.1951) and after submission of replies by complainant and attorney of accused, the present cancellation report was filed in the Court, on the ground that sale deed had been executed by grand father of complainant in favour of accused persons way back in 1951 and mutation in revenue record had already been done in favour of accused persons.

The counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that the purported signatures of witness Sohan Lal on the sale documents could have been compared with his signatures on his Will dated 02.08.1989 and another sale deed dated 19.06.1963. The IO states that the complainant had not filed either the originals or the copies of these documents along with his reply, hence there was no opportunity for verification of signatures of witness or the executants of the sale deed dated 26.10.1951.

After hearing arguments on both the sides and after perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that cognizance shall be taken in this case and complainant shall be given an opportunity to bring evidence on record for just decision of the case.

Hence, I take cognizance of the offences mentioned in