The court affirmed the necessity of fair trial principles and clarified that observations regarding alleged fraud do not preclude proper investigation.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 14599/2020

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 189 days in filing the present petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

CRL.REV.P. 337/2020 & CRL.M.A. 14598/2020 & CRL.M.A. 14600/2020

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a judgment dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), impugning an order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the learned MM (Mahila Court) in CC No.2980/2017 captioned `Shilpi Jain and Anr. v. Kunal Jain & Ors.'.

4. By the said order dated 15.02.2018, the learned MM had taken note of the reply filed by the Bank of India along with its affidavit that a document purported to have been issued by the bank, which was filed by respondent no.1 (appellant herein) had not been issued by the bank. It further stated that the signature on the said document was not the signature of any of its officials and the stamp of the Bank used was a stamp, which was kept at the entrance of the Bank for cheques. It was alleged that the same had been used by the respondent (the appellant himself). In view of the above, the learned MM had granted the appellant an opportunity to explain the same and also stated that failing such explanation contempt proceedings would be issued and an FIR would be ordered to be registered for playing a fraud with the court by filing of forged documents.

5. The matter (CC No.2980/2017) was once again taken up by the learned MM on 26.02.2018. However, on that date, the appellant failed to appear before the court or tender any explanation regarding the allegedly false documents filed by him. The learned MM noted that the appellant had filed photocopy of the questionable document along with his application supported by an affidavit on 18.01.2018. He claimed that the document in question had been issued by the Bank of India and indicated that the said Bank had frozen his accounts. Apparently, the appellant had furnished the said documents in order to explain why he had failed to make payment of school admission fees for his daughter as directed by orders dated 01.11.2017, 21.12.2017 and 11.01.2018.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop the learned MM has issued notice to the Bank to ascertain the reasons why the appellant's account was freezed.

7. The order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned MM is set out below:

"Despite opportunity given respondent no.1 has failed to present himself in the court and explain the forged documents filed by him.

Respondent no.1 filed the said documents in photocopy alongwith his application, affidavit on 18.01.2018 stating that the said documents is issued by "Bank of India" and that they have frozen his accounts. The said contention and document was produced by him when he failed to make payment of school admission fees of his daughter as per order 01.11.2017, 21.12.2017, 11.01.2018. Thereafter vide order dated 24.01.2018 the bank was called as to why the said accounts were freezed.

In reply to the said averment and document Bank of India has filed the affidavit along with application that the same document is not issued by them and is made by respondent/himself.

This shows that respondent no.1 Kunal Jain has filed a fabricated document.

I am satisfied that the present facts of the case require thorough investigation on the point of the preparation of forged bank issued letter/document; regarding the forged initiate of the bank, stamp of the bank.

Th