JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. This is an unfortunate case which once again echoes the dictum that nothing counts more in life than money not even uterine relationship of siblings. Out of the two sisters and a brother one sister Smt. Hema Pathak and respondent No. 2 Mukul Pathak are fighting for the fortune-jewellary and ornaments etc., left by their deceased mother tooth and nail. An endeavour by this Court for a long period of many months to get the matter settled out side the Court amicably so that the relationship of brother and sister is cemented happily ever henceforth in this ephemeral life has yielded no result as none of the two sides are ready to budge and they want to fight it with all their might and main. Left with no other option this criminal miscellaneous application is being decided on its merits.
2. Respondent No. 2 Mukul Pathak and applicant No. 1 Hema Pathak are issues of late Sri Rajendra Pathak and Smt. Sudha Rani Pathak. Rajendra Pathak who was a government servant and Deputy Director in Information and Public Relation Department, Government of U.P. breathed his last on 20.9.1989 survived by his wife Smt. Sudha Rani Pathak, applicant No. 1 Smt. Hema Pathak along with one more sister and the respondent No. 2 Mukul Pathak. Fortunately, Sudha Rani Pathak also breathed her last on 19.5.2001 as had she been alive her agony would have been worst than death. Respondent No. 2 Mukul Pathak lodged a complaint before A.C.J.M. court No. 46, Agra as Complaint Case No. 1681 of 2005, Mukul Pathak v. Hema Pathak and Ors., under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 404 I.P.C., P.S. Rakabganj, district Agra with epitomized allegations that the two applicants accused Smt. Hema Pathak and Girja Shanker Sharma are husband and wife and were married on 5th June 1993. The complainant, Mukul Pathak is the only son of his parents and his father had died on 20.9.1989.The mother of the complainant as well as of accused No. 1. Sudha Rani Pathak also left for her heavenly abode on 19.5.2001 due to illness. The complainant and his wife had to look after his deceased mother while she was ill. Late Smt. Sudha Rani Pathak had many gold ornaments, which were kept in her almiraha. Accused Smt. Hema Pathak use to visit her ailing mother and in between 4.5.2001 to 19.5.2001, when Smt. Sudha Rani Pathak was hospitalized in S.R. Hospital, Agra and the complainant was looking after her ailing mother, the said accused Smt. Hema Pathak took away all the ornaments and bank paper belonging to Sudha Rani Pathak from her almiraha, which fact came to the knowledge of the complainant after her death. On demanding back the said ornaments etc. by the complainant, the two accused Smt. Hema Pahak and her husband Girja Shanker Sharma turned down his request. Late mother Smt. Sudha Rani Pathak, had also a savings bank account/pension account in State Bank main branch, C.P. Tola, Agra and had a deposit of Rs. 50000/- in the said account. The parents of the complainant had also a locker; F.D.Rs., share bonds, Vikas Patra and ornaments, which were kept in the said locker. The details of the ornaments are mentioned in paragraph 7 and 12 of the complainant. After the death of the mother when the complainant went to inquire about the account and the locker he was informed that the applicants accused persons had taken away all the money and the ornaments. The bank people refused to divulge any information to the complainant regarding the fact as to how and why the money and the ornaments were handed over to the two accused when the complainant was the only legal heir of the deceased. Being sure that bank people connived with the accused persons and by making false signature allowed them to take away all the ornaments, cash and other valuable assets from the bank that the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants but he failed to obtain any order from the Court. He also failed to get any relief from the revisional court also in Criminal Revision No. 331 of 2003 which was dismissed on 20.5.2005. He gave applications to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, which also yielded no results. Consequently the complainant laid a complaint on 31.8.2005 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 404 I.P.C. (annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of this application) in the court of A.C.J.M. court No. 46, Agra against the applicants. The statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witness P.W.I Vishnu Prasad Agrawal, Assistant Manger State Bank of India, C.P. Tola, Branch Agra were recorded (annexure No. 2 to the affidavit). In statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the complainant has reiterated his complaint allegations and Vishnu Prasad Agrawal P.W.1 prove the ledger in respect of pension account of the deceased mother and testified that the locker belonging to the late mother was opened by the accused. He also testified the withdrawal of money and stated that no succession certificate etc. was produced before him. He also testified that various cheques were got transferred by the accused Hema Pathak into her account. Finding prima facie case the trial court summoned Smt. Hema Pathak only for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. on 15.2.2006. A certified copy of the summoning order is annexure No. 7 to the affidavit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the accused in this court with the prayer that the proceedings of aforesaid complaint case be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court invoking its inherent power.
3. As stated above, since the dispute was between real brother and sister this Court made an endeavour for outside settlement to do complete justice between the parties and for their better future relationship and for cementing the bondage of siblings but all attempts including the attempt by the arbitrators appointed by this Court who were counsel for both the sides, yielded no result. Hence, the matter was finally heard on its merit.
4. Sri D.N. Wali, learned Counsel for the complainant has filed an affidavit, which has been taken on record.
5. I have heard Sri Raghubir Singh as well as Sri J.S. Adichya, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri D.N. Wali, learned Counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. at a great length and have gone through the record of the present criminal miscellaneous application.
6. It is contended by the leaned counsel for the applicant that the complaint is malafidy, purposive and has been lodged with an intention to humiliate and harass the applicant. He submitted that earlier to the filing of the complaint respondent No. 2 complainant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Agra, Room No. 32, which was dismissed by the concerned A.C.J.M, on 7.11.2002 (annexure No. 4). He further submitted that an unsuccessful challenge was made by the complainant to the said order dated 7.11.2002 but his revision was also dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on 25.5.2005 (annexure No. 5). He, therefore, submitted that on the same ground the lower courts below did not find it appropriate to order for registration and investigation of the case as in its opinion no cognizable offence was disclosed. He, therefore harangued that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence as the facts mentioned in the complaint are identical as that of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which had already been rejected and the said order had become final. He submitted that the complaint does not disclose any triable offence against the applicant and therefore, the complaint should be quashed. He further submitted that the trial court committed an error in summoning the applicant for offences under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 I.P.C. vide its order dated 15.12.2006. He submitted that the complainant brother maltreated the deceased mother and thereafter filed the complaint against the present applicant. He, concluding, contended that no offence is disclosed against the present applicant Smt. Hema Pathak and the complaint is malafidy vexatious and purposive and therefore, it should be quashed because of the two reasons canvassed by him.
7. Sri D.N. Wali, learned Counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. contrarily argued that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot go behind the allegations levelled in the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. They submitted that the perusal of the complaint specifically makes out the offence for which the applicant has been summoned. He submitted that by making a forged signature the jewellary and ornaments and other valuable securities belonging to the deceased mother, of which the applicant was also one of the inheritor and entitled to share has been whisked away by the accused and therefore, she had committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. He further submitted that since the signature of the complainant was forged in the bank for the purpose of withdrawing the money from the saving account/pension account of the deceased mother and for opening her locker to withdraw all the ornaments makes out offences under Sections 468, 471 I.P.C. and thus the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences and consequently it cannot be quashed. He submitted that the complaint, which discloses commission of cognizable offences must be allow to proceed and the complainant should be given a chance to substantiate the allegations levelled by him by leading evidence during the trial and therefore, the present criminal miscellaneous application is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the argument advanced by both the sides. At the initial stage of the prosecution this Court is required only to see the allegations leveled in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is not the function of this Court under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. to critically appreciate the allegations levelled in the complaint to adjudge the probability or improbability of the incident alleged. This Court is also not required under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to critically appreciate the allegations levelled in the complaint and in statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. so as to fetch out a defense for the accused. What is required under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to look to the allegations levelled in the complaint on the face of it only for the limited purposes to come to a finding as to whether any offence against the accused is disclose or not. Beyond that the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not travel at all. It is for the trial court to go into the depth of the allegations leveled and critically appreciate it from the evidence adduced in the case and then record a finding of guilt or innocence. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to take the allegations levelled in the complaint to be true and correct without any addition or subtraction.
9. In this view of the matter, when the allegations levelled in the complaint in the present case is judged it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the accused. Admittedly, the deceased had three issues and in any view of the matter all the three of them were entitled to equal share in the property of the deceased. The case of the complainant is that his share of fortune has been whisked away by the accused. This act of the accused certainly makes out an offence of cheating and consequently it cannot be said at this stage that no offence of any kind is disclosed in the complaint filed by the complainant. No doubt, it is a case in the nature of a family feud but the power of under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is circumscribed within the purview of the scope of that section. Thus considering the allegations levelled in the complaint the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the complaint does not disclose any triable offence cannot be accepted and has to be rejected.
10. Another submission of learned Counsel for the applicant that since the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant stood dismissed with the same allegations, therefore, no cognizable offence or a triable offence is made out against the applicant accused also cannot be accepted. The scope of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is clearly different than the filing a complaint. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has to be adjudged from the point of view as to whether direction for registration or investigation of F.I.R. is to be made or not? Further the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is no ground to quash a complaint if it discloses commission of some offence. Rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is no bar for filing a complaint. In this view of the matter, this second submission of learned Counsel for the applicant that earlier rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. will operate as res judicata or bar in filing a criminal complaint also does not held good and is hereby repelled.
11. Coming to the third and the last contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the proceedings is vexatious and malafidy and therefore, it should be quashed also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that once offence is disclosed the proceedings has to go on. In this case the relationship between the accused and the complainant was such that there was no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the applicant. The allegation is that the legal entitlement of the complainant had been denied to him by resorting to illegal means of forging signatures and taking away his entitled share of property. This certainly attaches criminality into the whole act. Thus, it cannot be said that the proceeding is vexatious, malafidy or purposive, which has been initiated against the present applicant by complainant respondent No. 2.
12. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that the present criminal miscellaneous application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Consequently this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. The stayed order granted earlier vide order dated 12.4.2006 as is extended time to time is hereby vacated.
13. A copy of this order be sent to trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.