Vineet Saran JUDGMENT
U.U. Lalit, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the High Court1 in Criminal Revision No. 2996 of 2015 and Criminal Revision No. 2556 of 2016.
3. One G.S. Naidu, who owned a Maruti-800 vehicle of 1995 make, passed away on 12.12.2001 leaving behind his widow, three sons and a daughter (who was unmarried and has since then passed away). His second son (Complainant in the present matter) filed a complaint against his brother (the third son of G.S. Naidu) and his wife, submitting as under:
3. It is submitted that the father of the complainant namely Late G.S. Naidu passed away on 12.12.2001. A copy of the death certificate in this regard is enclosed herewith as Annexure A/1 with this complaint.
4. It is submitted that on 2.11.2010, the aforesaid vehicle has been sold by the Respondent by putting forged signatures of the complainant's father on the Form 29 and 30 and also put forged signature on the affidavit annexed with Form No. 29 and 30 knowing fully well that Late G.S. Naidu has passed away on 12.12.2001. A true copy of Form No. 29 and 30 and the affidavit is being filed herewith as Annexure A/2. It is submitted that on the date when the vehicle was sold which was being owned by G.S. Naidu, the father of the complainant was no more.
5. It is submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in order to sell the vehicle, has forged the signature of Late G.S. Naidu knowing fully well that he has passed away. It is also submitted that the documents which have been forged by the Respondents have been subsequently used for getting the benefit in the form of sale consideration of the vehicle. The act of the Respondents squarely covers the offences punishable Under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the Respondents are liable to be punished accordingly. Hence, the present complaint is being filed before this Hon'ble Court.
4. The Complaint came up before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, who, by his order dated 05.07.2013 concluded as under:
On the basis of evidence and document produced on behalf of complainant it appears that no prima facie case is made out against Accused Samta Naidu and Dilip Naidu.
Hence complaint Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected and thereby dismissed.
5. The complainant being aggrieved, filed Revision before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. On 05.03.2014 the Counsel for the Complainant submitted that he wished to withdraw the Revision with liberty to file a fresh complaint on the basis of certain new facts, which request was opposed. After perusing the record and considering the submissions, the Revisional Court observed as under:
This is well settled position that new complaint can be filed any time on the basis of new facts and for which purposes there is no need of permission of this Court or permission of any court. Because revis........