Pirzada denied relief; plea against court order on forgery dismissed | gurgaon | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 23, 2017-Thursday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Pirzada denied relief; plea against court order on forgery dismissed

gurgaon Updated: Dec 04, 2015 12:10 IST
Nikhil Sharma
Nikhil Sharma
Hindustan Times

Additional sessions judge Roopam Singh on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by former IAS officer Gurnihal Singh Pirzada against an order passed by the court of judicial magistrate of first class Hasan Deep Singh Bajwa for producing forged evidence in the court.

Terming the appeal “without merit”, the court upheld the impugned order. It is pertinent to mention that Pirzada, a resident of Sector 4, made Bajwa one of the respondents in his criminal appeal. An appeal was also filed against one Narinder Singh, a Ludhiana resident, and the UT on July 3. Earlier, Narinder had filed a plea in Bajwa’s court under Section 340 of the CrPC for initiating an inquiry against Pirzada and one Raman Uppal on the ground that they had willfully used forged documents in relation to the proceedings of the court in a case (titled Raman Uppal versus Sukhbir Shergill and others), due to which the court got an FIR registered against both accused and complainant, on September 16, 2013.

After hearing arguments, Bajwa allowed the petition filed under Section 340 of the CrPC to the effect that a complaint under Section 193 (punishment for false evidence) read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC and Section 340 of the CrPC for prosecution of both the accused — Raman Uppal and Gurnihal Singh — was ordered to be filed.

The court stated that both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy so as to fabricate false evidence. The court through its reader Pankaj Jaidka also filed a complaint against the accused for producing forged evidence and referred the complaint to the court of CJM on May 18, 2015.

The impugned order was challenged by Pirzada, citing that the magistrate (Bajwa) was not competent to file a complaint through his reader. Moreover, he claimed that the magistrate could not decide the petition, because vide order dated April 28, 2014, passed by the court of CJM Anubhav Sharma, the petition filed by respondent 1 (Narinder) under Section 340 of CrPC along with other cases pending in different courts were ordered to be transferred to the court of Chandigarh JMIC Pamelpreet Grewal.

Disagreeing to the contentions of the appellant, the additional sessions judge stated: “The complaint can be either signed by the presiding officer of the court or by such officer of the court as the court may authorise in writing in this behalf; meaning thereby that discretion vested with the court to file complaint either under its own signatures or through such officer of the court as it may authorise.” The court also disagreed to the contention of the appellant that he was not heard before the order.