This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, Tonk dated 20.7.2006, by which his protest petition on a final report submitted by the police has been rejected.
Petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent Pooran Singh alleging that he committed offence u/s. 420 IPC. Allegation was that he got a adoption deed executed from step mother of the petitioner and prepared a forget adoption deed executed in the name of step mother Sada Kanwar and got her thumb impression on that deed at the time when she was in unconscious stage. The police gave final report in the matter and thereafter the petitioner filed protest petition, which was rejected by the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order without applying its mind. It failed to consider that Mst. Sada Kanwar was 80 years of age and was suffering from serious illness. She was brought by Jeep and admitted in hospital on 3.4.2006 and forged adoption deed was prepared on 1.4.2006 and ultimately Sada Kanwar died on 8.4.2006 The circumstances shows that Sada Kanwar was not travelling and that she was in unconscious stage. She could not have signed the adoption deed. The The Sub-Registrar before whom the adoption deed was registered and the Medical officer Dr. G.S Rajawat who has given the evidence that she was in fit stage of mind and both acted illegally because they were both from the same community to which the accused respondent belongs. It is contended that the other independent witnesses namely Laxman Singh and Shivraj Singh in their statement u/s. 161 have stated that when the thumb impression was obtained on the adoption deed, she was unconscious.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I find that the trial court has given cogent reasons in not accepting the statement of those two witnesses and has held that in the face of evidence of Sub-Registrar and the Medical Officer that Sada Kanwar was conscious and was in a position to sign the adoption deed and it was only at her consent that deed was registered. Both of them are public servants and their statements could not be ignored because these two witnesses may be at the instance of the plaintiff petitioner made a contrary statement. Even otherwise, complaint in the present matter was filed on 26.4.2000 and a decade has gone by since then.
I do not find any matter worth making interference.
The petition is therefore dismissed.