The respondent filed an original suit stating that he was a tenant in the disputed shop and was wrongly being asked to vacate, declining to accept rent, seeking a permanent injunction, etc The appellant in turn relied on an agreement to submit that the respondent was working in the disputed shop and that he was not the tenant. On the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert, the present complaint came to be filed by the respondent that the agreement was a false and fabricated document and the suit was decided accordingly. The aggrieved appellant preferred an appeal. The very substratum of the criminal complaint vanishes in view of the finding of the appellate court that the impugned agreement was not a forged document in an abruptly concluded order to decline interference. The proceedings therefore quashed and the appeal allowed.
(2020) 3 SCC 402- Mukul Agrawal and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another