Absent core elements of deception and harm, allegations of forgery and cheating in the context of legal heirs and land mutation do not warrant criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”], assails the summoning order dated 19^th September, 2019 passed by the CMM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, and the revisional order dated 16^th November, 2019 passed by the ASJ, Dwarka Courts, dismissing the Petitioners’ challenge to the said summoning order.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The dispute arises from a private complaint instituted by Late Sh. Sukhbir Singh, son of Late Sh. Chunni Lal, against his co-legal heirs (the Petitioners). Upon the demise of the complainant on 3^rd April, 2017, Respondent No. 2, his son is pursing the compliant.

3. The controversy relates to certain agricultural land forming part of the estate of Late Sh. Chunni Lal, situated within the jurisdiction of SDM Najafgarh, Delhi, and recorded in the revenue records under Khata/Khatoni No. 105/2018, comprising various Khasra numbers in the concerned village. 4. The complainant’s case was that, without his knowledge or consent, an application for mutation in respect of the said land was moved before the Tehsildar, Najafgarh, in the joint names of the legal heirs. It was alleged that the complainant had neither signed the mutation application nor the affidavit said to accompany it, and that his signatures thereon had been forged by the accused persons.

5. Apprehending misuse of the alleged forged documents to deal with his share in future, the complainant addressed representations to the revenue authorities and lodged a complaint with the SHO, P.S. Najafgarh, on 31^st August, 2015. When no action followed, he approached higher authorities.

6. The complainant then approached the Magistrate. A status report noted an inter se dispute among the heirs concerning the estate of Late Sh. Chunni Lal and recorded that, on a comparison, the signatures on the mutation affidavit appeared to differ from the complainant’s signatures.

7. By order dated 2^nd March, 2016, the Magistrate dismissed the complainant’s application under Section 156(3) CrPC, observing that the allegation of forgery was unsupported by handwriting expert opinion. The revision was dismissed on 21^st March, 2017, with Sessions Court observing that, even assuming forgery, the necessary dishonest or fraudulent intention was not made out since mutation primarily records devolution of names in revenue records.

8. After the complainant’s demise, Respondent No. 2 deposed as CW-1 and reiterated the allegations. A Patwari from the office of the SDM, Najafgarh, also deposed and produced the relevant revenue record.

9. On 14^th February, 2019, the questioned and admitted signatures of the complainant were sent to the FSL, Rohini. In its report dated 29^th May, 2019, the FSL stated that it was not possible to express any opinion on the material available and suggested that further admitted signatures, preferably executed prior to the questioned signatures, be supplied for examination.

10. Despite the inclusive FSL opinion, the Magistrate,