Dismissed

Ranvir Pal Singh v. Mangal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2014CRM-M/23635/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of a complaint alleging forgery of a matriculation certificate submitted by the respondent for a Lambardar post. The High Court rejected the merits-based petition for quashing order as the petitioner failed to produce evidence from Panjab University proving the certificate was fake.

What did the court decide?

The petition before the High Court was dismissed.

Ranvir Pal Singh Vs Mangal Singh — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-23635 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-23635 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.11.2014.

Ranvir Pal Singh

........Petitioner

Vs.

Mangal Singh ......Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Present: Mr. R.S.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

SABINA, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the orders dated 24.9.2011 (Annexure P-2) and 19.4.2012 (Annexure P-3) .

¶14

Petitioner filed complaint against the respondent under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case of the petitioner, as per the complaint Annexure P-1, in brief, is that complainant as well as respondent had submitted applications for the post of Lambardar along with necessary documents. At the time of submitting his application, respondent had attached a fake matriculation certificate alleged to have been issued by Panjab University, Chandigarh.

¶15

In preliminary evidence, petitioner examined himself as CW-3 and examined CW-1 Satnam Singh, Science Teacher and CW-2 Mohammad Akhtar, Peshi Assistant, Commissioner

¶16

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.25 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-23635 of 2012 (O&M)

¶18

-2 -

¶19

Appeals, Jallandhar.

¶20

The Trial Court after going through the preliminary evidence led by the petitioner, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 24.9.2011. The said order was upheld by the Court of Revision vide order dated 19.4.2012. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at this stage, Trial Court was only required to see prima facie that the certificate submitted by the respondent along with his application for the post of Lambardar, was a forged document. In this regard, CW-1 Satnam Singh had proved the school record wherein date of birth of the respondent was recorded as 15.2.1948. The said official further deposed that the name of the respondent was struck off from the school rolls on 20.5.1961. As per this witness, respondent had not appeared in the matriculation examination due to non-payment of examination fee. Thus, from the statement of the said witness, it was evident that respondent had never taken matriculation examination.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioner had failed to lead any evidence to the effect that the matriculation certificate submitted by the respondent was a forged and fabricated document.

¶23

In the present case, petitioner examined CW-1 Satnam Singh, Science Teacher, who deposed that name of the respondent was struck off from the school rolls on 20.5.1961 and he had later taken middle standard examination in the year 1965. The said witness further deposed that the respondent had

¶24

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.25 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M-23635 of 2012 (O&M) -3 -

¶26

not appeared in the matriculation examination due to nonpayment of examination fee. However, petitioner had failed to examine any official from the Panjab University, Chandigarh to establish that the matriculation certificate, attached by the respondent with his application for the post of Lambardar, had not been issued by the said University. In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the matriculation certificate of the respondent was fake, the learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Hence, no ground for interference is made out.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶30

November 19, 2014 Gurpreet

¶31

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.25 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ranvir Pal Singh v. Mangal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranvir Pal Singh v. Mangal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Surender Vs State of Haryana

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vishnu Dass Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Kaka Singh @ Rajinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hry