Dismissed¶20

Ram Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Mar 2025CRM-M/18159/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 340 CrPC; Section 468 CrPC; forgery of signatures; Power of Attorney dated 09.10.2014; CWP No.27736 of 2014 / CWP No.22736 of 2014; illiterate petitioner signing in Devanagri/Punjabi script; Shagun scheme recovery; limitation bar; CRM-M-18159-2017; Punjab and Haryana High Court; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC: the petitioner himself claims he came to know about the writ petition but did not take any action until recovery of Shagun scheme funds was initiated, filing the present petition only on 06.05.2017. ¶19

Ram Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC ought to be initiated against respondent No.2 for forging petitioner Ram Lal's signatures on the alleged Power of Attorney dated 09.10.2014 filed in this Court along with a writ petition (printed as CWP No.27736 of 2014 in para 1 and CWP No.22736 of 2014 in para 2), in which the petitioner was shown as petitioner No.4. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

On both counts — limitation and lack of proof of forgery — the petition fails; the question whether the signatures are forged can be proved only in evidence, and the petitioner cannot take shelter under Section 340 CrPC.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

¶19

Key takeaways

There is no evidence to prove that the petitioner did not sign the Power of Attorney; a mere statement that he did not sign, or that he does not know Hindi and signs only in Punjabi, is not sufficient to initiate criminal action against respondent No.2 without corroborating the forgery through scientific evidence (such as evidence of the other petitioners) and without explaining the time, date and manner in which the signatures were obtained.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Anoop Chitkara, J.) dismisses a petition under Section 340 CrPC in which the petitioner sought legal action against respondent No.2 for allegedly forging his signatures in Hindi script on a Power of Attorney dated 09.10.2014 filed with a 2014 writ petition (printed as CWP No.27736 of 2014 in para 1 and CWP No.22736 of 2014 in para 2) showing him as petitioner No.4. Held: (i) the petition was hopelessly barred under Section 468 CrPC, the petitioner having learnt of the writ petition earlier but moving only after Shagun scheme recoveries began, filing on 06.05.2017; and (ii) a bare assertion of non-signature or illiteracy in Hindi, without corroborating scientific evidence or particulars of the time, date and manner of obtaining the signatures, cannot sustain a Section 340 CrPC reference — forgery, if any, is provable only in evidence. All pending applications disposed.

¶1

CRM-M-18159-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-18159-2017 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025

Ram Lal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.

¶11

Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

Seeking legal action under Section 340 CrPC against respondent No.2 for committing forgery before this Court by forging his signatures on the alleged Power of Attorney dated 09.10.2014 Annexure P-1 filed in this Court in CWP No.27736 of 2014, petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 340 CrPC.

¶15

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The short point involved in the present case is that according to petitioner, respondent No.2 had filed CWP No.22736 of 2014 in this Court for issuing directions for investigation against Sarpanch of the village for mis-appropriating public funds. Petitioner was also shown as petitioner No.4 in the said writ petition whereas petitioner claims that he never filed any such writ petition nor his signatures in Hindi script which were affixed on the Power of Attorney dated 09.10.2014 Annexure A-1 did not belong to him. On coming to know about his being one of the petitioners, he contacted respondent No.2 Madan Lal who did not give any satisfactory reply. In para no.4 of the petition, petitioner claims that respondent No.2 is habitual of doing fraud and he even mentioned himself as Sarpanch which was incorrect. Petitioner claims that his signatures were obtained in Hindi script whereas he does not know Hindi and he is an illiterate person and puts his signature in devnagri script. In para no.6 of the petition, petitioner claims that when he got to know about recovery of grant under Shagun scheme he felt bad and filed present petition. In the reply filed by private respondents No.2 to 4, they have denied all the allegations and have also taken grounds of limitation. On the face of it, the matter is barred by limitation for

¶16

Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.25 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶17

¶18

CRM-M-18159-2017

¶19

the reason that he himself claims that he came to know about the writ petition but he did not take any action until the recovery of Shagun scheme were initiated and he filed the present petition on 06.05.2017. Thus, the petition was hopelessly barred under Section 468 CrPC. The second reason for rejection is that there is no evidence to prove that petitioner did not sign on the Power of Attorney. Mere statement that he did not sign or that he did not know Hindi and sign only in Punjabi is not sufficient to initiate criminal action against respondent No.2 without corroborating the signatures being forged through scientific evidence like in the shape of evidence of the other petitioners to state that petitioner was not at all involved in the filing of writ petition and also did not explain the time, date and manner in which petitioner’s signatures were obtained. Given above, the present petition fails on two counts. Firstly, on the grounds of limitation and secondly on lack of proof that his signatures are forged. Only this point can be proved in evidence and he cannot take shelter under Section 340 CrPC.

¶20