J U D G M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 05.03.2013, whereby the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (East) dated 03.08.2012, rejecting an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a civil suit bearing No.370/2010 on 16.11.2010 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents before the court of Civil Judge, Karkardooma courts, New Delhi. The petitioner therein stated that he is Poojari/Priest in the suit premises since 1972 and had been looking after the suit premises bearing ‘Plot No. 71, Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Guru Angad Nagar Extn. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92’. After issuance of notice in the concerned civil suit, the defendants therein, who are respondents in the present petition, filed their written statements allegedly relying on a forged registration certificate bearing Certificate No. S/44972/2003.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 02.02.2011, the learned trial court, while placing reliance on the said forged certificate filed by respondents herein, only partly allowed his application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The petitioner realised that the certificate in question was a forged certificate and, therefore, after getting relevant documents under the Right to Information Act 2005, the petitioner filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court for initiation of the criminal proceedings against the respondents. The learned trial court did not find it appropriate to issue notice on the [4]

aforesaid application and rejected the same vide order dated 03.08.2012. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge has been affirmed in R.C.A. No. 83/2012 by the learned ADJ vide impugned order and hence, the present petitioner before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submitted that the approach adopted by the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge is erroneous, inasmuch as the courts below have not considered the facts of the case in the right perspective. According to him, the judgment relied upon by the learned Civil Judge in the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr, v. Meenakshi Marwah &. Anr.1, if perused carefully, would support the case of the petitioner and hence, while placing reliance on the said decision, the application in question ought not to have been dismissed. He further submits that the certificate in question available on record and the other materials would clearly demonstrate that the same is a forged document and in any case, the respondents have adversely affected the administration of justice and have abused the process of law. He has placed reliance on paragraph Nos. 11, 12 & 33 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr (supra). Besides that, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decisions in the matters of Babu Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.2, M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and Anr.3 & Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India &

Ors.4

1 (2005) 4 SCC 370

2 AIR 1964 SCC 725

3 (2000) 1 SCC 278

4 2013(14) SCALE

[5]

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the respondents may be prosecuted, in accordance with law for committing forgery.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that this court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not substitute its own view, when two courts have concurrently held that the forgery in question, if at all is made was committed before filing of the documents before the concerned court. While taking this court through paragraph Nos. 7,