Vijay Bishnoi, J.:— This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No. 24/2010 preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 20.6.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in FR No. 46/98, arising out of FIR No. 184/92 of Police Station Kotwali, Sriganganagar for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has got registered an FIR at the Police Station Kotwali, District Sriganganagar contending that he is the Regional Manager of the RIICO Ltd. Udhyog Vihar, Sriganganagar and he was out of Sriganganagar from the evening of 10.4.1992 till the morning of 20.4.1992 It is alleged that when he returned to the office on 20.4.1992, he found that one letter dated 10.4.1992 was dispatched from his office, however, the said letter is forged one and it does not contain the signatures of the complainant and the respondent No. 2 Ravi Setia has forged this letter with the intention to cheat the RIICO.
4. The police has investigated the matter and the alleged forged document dated 10.4.1992 was sent for examination to the hand writing expert and it is revealed that the letter dated 10.4.1992 does not contain the signatures of the complainant, however, the police has concluded that since the letter dated 10.4.1992 is produced by the accused in civil suit preferred on behalf of his wife and as per the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C, only the court, in which the said document has been filed, can institute a complaint and the police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR.
5. It appears that the trial court without providing opportunity of hearing to the complainant accepted the said FR submitted by the police vide order dated 22.5.1998 Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition and the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar vide order dated 1.5.2000 has quashed the order dated 22.5.1998 passed by the trial court and remitted the matter to the trial court for deciding it afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. The trial court thereafter has further accepted the FR filed by the police and rejected the protest petition of the petitioner vide order dated 12.3.2003, against which, the petitioner again preferred a criminal revision petition and the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar vide order dated 21.7.2003 allowed the said revision petition and again remitted the matter to the trial court for deciding it afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court again accepted the FR submitted by the police and rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 20.6.2009, against which, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the revisional court, however, the same has been dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 22.7.2011 Hence, this criminal misc. petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the opinion of the hand writing expert is available on record to the effect that the disputed document dated 10.4.1992 does not contain the signatures of the complainant, then, prima facie evidence for taking cognizance against the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is available on record, however, the trial court without taking into consideration the said piece of evidence has illegally passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that the impugned orders passed by the courts below be quashed and the trial court be directed to take cognizance against the respondent No. 2 for the aforesaid offences and proceed further in accordance with law.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below and submitted that there is no evidence available on record which suggests that the respondent No. 2 has forged the signatures of the complainant. It is submitted that the trial court as well as the revisional court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impunged orders passed by the courts below and carefully scrutinized the record of the case.
10. It is not in dispute that during the course of police investigation, the disputed document dated 10.4.1992 was sent for examination by the hand writing expert and as per his report, the said document does not contain the signatures of the petitioner, however, at the same time, there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the said document was prepared by the respondent No. 2. It is also not in dispute that Raghuveer Singh, Class IV employee of the RIICO, Sriganganagar has admitted that he had dispatched the letter dated 10.4.1992 from the office.
11. Looking to the above facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the respondent No. 2 has forged the signatures of the petitioner and the said document was duly dispatched by the office of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the trial court as well as the revisional court have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.
12. Moreover, this criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C
13. Hence, this criminal misc. petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed.