JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. This is an application moved by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.PC read with Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code against respondents 1 to 7, who are respondents 7 to 13 in CW 4827/2001.
2. The petitioner’s case is that the answering respondents have made false averments and produced forged documents with a view to mislead and take advantage in the legal proceedings. It may be noted that the writ petition itself had been disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 19th September, 2001. By the said order, petitioner was directed to file the appeal before the Financial Commissioner by 30th September, 2001 and the Financial Commissioner was required to decide the application for stay within next 10 days. This order was passed in view of Mr.Ashok Nath, assuming additional charge as Financial Commissioner under Section 64 of the Land Revenue Act. The benefit of the interim order was to ensure to the petitioner till then. In view of the order, as aforesaid, the writ petition stood disposed of.
3. Petitioner, at the same time, had moved the present application. Petitioner requested for discharge of respondents 1 to 6 in the writ petition who were Government and other statutory authorities and pressed the claim against the present respondents.
4. I have heard Mr.Anand in support of the application at length. Mr.Anand has painstakingly taken me through the documents which he claims had been filed by the said respondents and were forged and fabricated. The first such document is at page 196 (Annexure-A). The heading of the same reads “Order File No.2559/CO/Misc. Under consolidation Goshwara No.7120 scheme objection U/S.21(2), Resolution No.148”. The said order/resolution has also been reproduced at paged 314 of the file wherein the heading is “ORDER FILE NO.2559/CO/MISC. Report under consolidation Proceedings”. Mr.Anand submits that the respondents deliberately forged the documents at Annexure A by giving a wrong heading showing it to be under Section 21(2). He submits that the resolution was not under Section 21(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Learned counsel contends that an impression was sought to be given by the forged documents as if it was an order under Section 21(2) while in fact it was not so. In this connection, it would be relevant to take notice of the averment made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit. Para 2 of the said counter-affidavit is as under :-
“2. That during the course of condolidation proceedings the consolidation Officer allotted land bearing Kh.No.122/5/1 (3 bighas 1 biswas) vide judicial order in case File No.170/CO/75 dt.21.7.1976 and Resolution No.61 to the respondents No.7 to 12 under Section 21(2) stage of Consolidation Act, besides the suit land bearing Kh.No.123/1 measuring 12 biswas (0-12) min-west vide order (Judicial order) in File No.2559/CO/Misc. dt.25.8.1988 and Resolution No.148. The copy of Resolution No.148 is attached herewith as Annexure-A.”
5. From the aforesaid averment, it would be seen that it was a Resolution No.61 which was claimed to be under Section 21(2) and not file No.2559/CO/Misc. Dated 25.8.1988 i.e. resolution No.148. Moreover, in my view, there is no other difference in the text of the resolution as produced with the one which is claimed to be a forged one. The only difference being that in the resolution claimed to be forged is that on the top in the heading the words ‘Goshwara No.7120 scheme objection U/S.21(2)’ are added. Counsel for the respondent has explained that this was a translation of the resolution No.148 done from Urdu in which the error crept. There is no intention to cause any confusion or mislead the petitioner. This fact is evident from the text of the resolution as also from the averment made in para 2 of the counter affidavit.
6. The second limb of the petitioner’s arguments is that an Aks-Sijra had been filed by Dr.Shanti Sarup which showed a `kaimi’ in existence i.e. structure in existence while the Aks Sijra being filed by the respondent at page 220 did not show `kaimi structure’. The net result is that if the Kaimi was shown, the area of the petitioner would be 10 biswas and they would not have been entitled to any allotment in the consolidation proceedings. Learned counsel for respondent submits that documents as filed by them were on the basis of certified copy from the revenue authority as obtained by them and if there has been any omission on the part of the revenue authorities to show the `Kaimi’, they cannot be held responsible for the same. He further contends that it was an old structure which had ceased to exist. This is refuted by Mr.Anand, who submits that it is still in existence.
7. In view of the foregoing facts and pleas, as noticed in paras 5 and 6 above, it would be seen that respondent has given a plausible explanation with regard to the discrepancies in the document and Aks Sijra, pointed out by the respondent on the basis of which jurisdiction of this Court to take action under Section 340 Cr.P.C.,is invoked. This is certainly not a case, where the Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C., for directing proceedings to be initiated or a complaint to be filed. The writ petition, wherein these proceedings took place and the documents claimed to be fabricated were filed, has not been disposed of on merits. It has been disposed of with the direction to file an appeal before the Financial Commissioner. It would be open to the petitioner to point out these errors, omissions and alleged fabrication, as he calls them before the Financial Commissioner/Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has done so. In case, it is so, the Appellate Authority would take note of this while deciding the appeal on merits.
8. The legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction is well settled. Reference is invited to Pritish Vs.State of Maharashtra reported at . The Supreme Court observed as under:-
“The Court at the stage envisaged in Section 340 is not deciding the guilt or innocence of the party against whom proceedings are to be taken before the Magistrate. At that stage the Court only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence affecting administration of justice.”
Reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in B.K.Gupta Vs.Damodar H.Bajaj reported at . The Supreme Court observed as under:-
“There are two conditions on fulfillment of which a complaint can be filed against a person, who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a proceeding before a Court. Firstly, that a person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the Court and, secondly, in the opinion of the Court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him.
In the present case, the High Court has recorded a finding that the appellant has made a false statement on oath and has also used evidence known to be false and fabricated. But there is no material on record to show that the Court applied its mind regarding the second condition as to whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry into the false evidence given by the appellant and a complaint was to be filed. In the absence of application of mind in that regard, the order passed by the High Court directing the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court to file a complaint against the appellant was vitiated…….”
9. Considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C., it would be seen that in the instant case, firstly, the respondent has given a plausible explanation for the discrepancies and omissions, pointed out in the documents and pleadings. Secondly, considering the nature of proceedings, writ petition itself was disposed of and the matter is pending before the Appellate Authority, where the petitioner would have the opportunity of putting forth his case regarding no reliance being placed on the said documents, this is certainly not a case, where it would be expedient or in the interest of justice to make an enquiry into the alleged offence, affecting administration of justice.
The application has no merit and is dismissed.