Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2). This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with the Section 401 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 16.6.1995 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in criminal revision petition No. 5/90 passed whereby the learned District & Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and quashed and set aside the order dated 18.11.1989 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur on F.I.R. No. 180 of 1989.

(3). The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, may be summarised as below :-

(4). One Smt. Gattu Bai, widow of late Shri Ambalal submitted a complaint in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur on 24.6.1989 against Mohanlal, Ranglal, Kishanlal and Kanhaiyalal alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471,474 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint that on 16.6.1989, the accused No.1 to 4 namely, Mohanlal, Ranglal, Kishanlal and Kanhaiyalal want to her and told her that the proceedings of settlement were in progress and, therefore, she should get the field mutated in her name the revenue record. A document was also produced before complainant by the accused No.1 Mohanlal and it was reported by her that accused No.5 was also present. Kanhaiyalal Surana is the scribe of the document. According to allegation made in the complaint, the complainant Smt. Gattu Bai acted on the representation made before her by the accused 1 to 4 and she affixed her thumb impressions on the document which was produced before her. She was not in the need of money nor she agreed to sell her house to any person. After a few days, the complainants nephew Ganpatlal went to the complai- nants house and inquired from her whether she had executed any sale-deed in respect of her house. She denied the execution of any sale-deed but she stated that her thumb impression was obtained on a document by the accused persons. Ganpatlal further told the complainant that the document was with the accused persons. The complainant did not place full reliance on the statement made by Ganpatlal as her relations with Ganpatlal were strained for the last few years. She collected some members of the community and told them about the incident which had occurred on 16.6.1989, when all the four accused persons went to her and asked her to affix thumb impression on the document after advising her that she should get the field mutated in her name. The members of the community, to whom she narrated the incident, summoned the accused Nos. 1 to 4 but only accused No.3 Kishanlal turned up before them and he stated that a sale-deed in favour of accused No.2 had been executed and the thumb impression of the complainant had been obtained on that sale-deed. Thus, having come to know that a sale-deed had been prepared and on that sale-deed thumb impressions had been obtained in the manner as alleged in the complaint, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused No.1 to 4 alleging the commission of various offences punishable under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(5). The complaint submitted by Smt.Gattu Bai was forwarded to the Station House Officer of the Police Station Gangapur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for inves- tigation. Treating the complaint submitted by Smt. Gattu Bai as the F.I.R., the police registered F.I.R. No.180 of 1989 and after completing investigation submitted the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

(6). By the time, the final report was submitted, complainant Smt.Gattu Bai breathed her last. One Ganpatlal, claiming to be the power of attorney holder of Shri Kamal Kishore, submitted a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate praying therein that the matter should be further investigated and the cognizance be taken of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document