The necessity of conducting an enquiry into the validity of documents in judicial proceedings is founded on upholding truth and integrity to prevent fraud within the court.

ORDER :

“The Earth is supported by the power of truth; It is the power of truth that makes the sun shine and the winds blow; Indeed all things rest upon the Truth.” --- Chanakya

Truth is the foundation of justice. Dispensation of justice, based on truth, is an essential and inevitable feature of the justice delivery system. Justice means truth is in action.

It is the duty of the Court to discover the truth to do complete justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discover and establish the real truth.

Justice founded on the truth would establish peace and harmony in the society. For the common man, truth and justice are synonymous and inseparable. So when truth fails, justice fails. People would have faith in the Judicial Administrative System, only when truth alone prevails and triumphs.

Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest.

Truth should be reigning the objectives of trial. The Courts are supposed to play an active role in discovering the truth and it is the duty of all stake holders to play an active role in this quest and assist the Court in discovering the truth. The Court should explore all available avenues in order to discover the truth.

1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the directions issued by the Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.9/2011 vide order dated 10.08.2018 for conducting enquiry regarding an agreement alleged to have been executed between the parties in 2000.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of sale agreement dated 04.04.2000 against the defendants before the Court of Additional District Judge No.1 Deeg, District Bharatpur, wherein on the basis of an oral statement of one of the witnesses, the Court in the impugned order has recorded that the executants of the agreement, i.e. Om Prakash and Chandra Prakash passed away on 20.01.1995 and 05.07.1990 respectively. Learned counsel submits that their death certificates were not produced on record, though an FIR was registered in this regard which resulted in Final Report ‘negative’. Learned counsel submits that unless and until any concrete evidence is made available on the record in support of such contentions, any order, issuing directions for conducting an enquiry for ascertaining the correctness of the execution of the document, cannot be passed. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, ld. Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that a disputed fact was placed on record of the Civil Court, wherein it was alleged that the executants of the agreement, i.e., Om Prakash and Chandra Prakash passed away long before the execution of the agreement dated 04.04.2000. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that a suit for specific performance of the agreement has been submitted solely on the basis of the existence of a valid sale agreement, hence, this fact is required to be examined by way of conducting an enquiry in order to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the said document. Hence, under these circumstances, the court below has not committed any error, which warrants any interference of this Court.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for specific performance of sale agreement was submitted by the petitioner No.1 against the defendants therein before the