The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence and the need for a trial to determine the truth in cases involving allegations of forgery and fraud.

Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Narendera Khetwani is the petitioner in the above captioned petitions. In Crl.M.C.No.3923/2013 he challenges the order dated July 03, 2013 passed in CC No.82/2010, by which order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued summons to him to appear on August 22, 2013 in a complaint filed by Hema Devi and her husband Narender Prasad alleging that he and one Raju Chetri have committed offences punishable under Section 467/468/471 IPC. In Crl.M.C.No.4834/2014 he challenges the order dated March 03, 2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing an application filed by him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which application he prayed that the concerned SHO be directed to register an FIR against Raju Chetri and one Satyadev. He also challenges the order dated July 08, 2014 where under the learned ASJ has dismissed the revision petition filed by him against the order dated March 03, 2014.

2. The relevant facts are that Narender Prasad and Hema Devi were desirous of selling property bearing private No.572-G comprised in Khasra No.571 min in the extended abadi of village Devli. Title to the land being that of Hema Devi and claim of her husband Narender Prasad being that he purchased the property in the name of his wife. Raju Chetri was the property dealer and there is lack of clarity as regards Satyadev, but it appears that Satyadev was helping Raju Chetri.

3. It is the claim of Narender Prasad and Hema Devi that through Raju Chetri they came into contact with the petitioner and after discussions it was agreed that the property would be sold for Rs. 25.5 lacs and on October 24, 2008 an agreement to sell was executed, recording therein that 10% of the agreed sale consideration i.e. Rs. 2.55 lacs have been received. The balance amount had to be paid when sale documents were to be executed. Petitioner claims that Raju Chetri and Satyadev told him that the sellers were wanting some money in cash and therefore firstly on December 15, 2008 and secondly on January 22, 2009 he gave Rs. 2 lacs on each occasion to Raju Chetri and Satyadev and the next day the two handed him over receipts executed by Hema Devi acknowledging having received Rs. 2 lacs on each date. Raju Chetri and Satyadev has signed as witnesses to the receipts. He was told that the sellers would like the sale consideration to be shown in sum of Rs. 10 lacs and thus he prepared a demand draft in sum of Rs. 7.45 lacs and handed over the same to Raju Chetri and Satyadev, agreeing to pay the balance amount in cash and get the sale documents executed in his favour. To facilitate the sale, at the asking of Raju Chetri and Satyadev, he executed a special power of attorney on June 24, 2009 in favour of Raju Chetri and handed over to him all original documents pertaining to the transaction, which power of attorney was misused by Raju Chetri to file a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell, the defendants being Hema Devi and her husband Narender Prasad.

4. At this stage it would be relevant to note the case presented by Hema Devi and Narender Prasad. They claimed that served with summons in the suit filed in the Court of District Judge Patiala House, they were shocked to learn that the second page of the agreement to sell had been changed to record that the sale consideration would be Rs. 10 lacs. Hema Devi’s signatures on the said page was forged. This led the two to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

5. In the pre-summoning evidence the two deposed on oath that the agreement to sell had been forged, in that the second page of the agreement to sell had been replaced with signatures of Hema Devi forged thereon. They also examined a handwriting expert to establish their claim and in view of the pre-summoning evidence led.

6. In view of the pre-summoning evidence led the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons only against Narendera Khetwani. Raju Chetri who was named as accused No.2 in the complaint was not