Allowed

Motilal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2019CRLMP/4017/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the criminal misc. petition, quashing orders below relying on a Document Examiner report without compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C., as investigation proved the complainant forged the deceased's death certificate.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Petition allowed; orders passed by Courts below quashed and set aside; proceedings in case No.23/472/13 before Judicial Magistrate Bansoor quashed.

Motilal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4017/2015

¶4

Motilal S/o Shaitan Ram.

¶5

Richpal S/o Surja.

¶6

Lakhu S/o Madha.

¶7

All by caste Meena, residents of Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶8

----Accused-Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan through PP.

¶11

Vijay Kumar S/o Bhagota by caste Meena, R/o Badh Theguwas Tan Bansoor District Alwar.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia. For Complainant(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi. For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶15

Order

¶16

08/08/2019

¶17

Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by order dated 08.07.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bansoor, District Alwar, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 23.11.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate Bansoor, District Alwar, whereby Court has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioners was affirmed.

¶18

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners entered into an agreement to sale with Bhagota-father of the complainant on 24.01.2001. Bhagota died on 22.03.2003. A complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent alleging that the agreement to sale dated 24.01.2001 is forged as his father has expired on 20.06.2000. An FIR was also lodged by the

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CRLMP-4017/2015]

¶21

petitioners against the complainant for preparing a forged death certificate. In the said FIR, Police after due investigation came to the conclusion that father of the complainant-respondent did not die on 20.06.2000 and to establish the same, record of the Government hospital where father of the complainant took treatment was also recovered by the Police. The said treatment took place in September, 2000 i.e. after the issuance of death certificate i.e. after date of death mentioned in the death certificate. Police submitted charge-sheet against the complainant for forging the death certificate. It is contended that Police after due investigation came to the conclusion that Bhagota was alive and an untrue complaint has been lodged by the complainant. Police, therefore, submitted negative final report. It is contended that the Courts below relying on the report of Document Examiner took cognizance against the petitioner which was upheld by the revisional Court.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on “Hira Singh vs. State of Raj. & Anr. 2012(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 949”, wherein Rajasthan High Court has held that certificate of the private hand writing expert cannot be relied on if the expert cannot be examined by the complainant as a witness under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Court further held that no permission was sought from the Court before comparing the thumb impression by the expert.

¶23

Counsel for the complainant-respondent has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that Court is only taking cognizance against the petitioners and the petitioners have already availed remedy of revision and second revision is barred under Sub-

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CRLMP-4017/2015]

¶26

Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Hence recourse to misc. petition cannot be permitted.

¶27

I have considered the contentions.

¶28

The main case of the complainant is that father expired on 20.06.2000 and was not alive on 24.01.2001 the date of the alleged agreement to sale. The fact narrated by the complainant recording demise of his father was found to be untrue and in FIR lodged by the petitioners, charge-sheet has been filed against the complainant. Police has collected the evidence including record of the Government hospital, where the deceased was under treatment in September, 2000. Thus, the main allegation in the complaint that father of the complainant was not alive on the date of the alleged agreement has been found to be untrue by the Investigating Agency. It is for this reason that the Investigating Agency submitted negative final report in the complaint lodged by the complainant. Trial Court as well as revisional Court have committed grave error in relying on the report submitted by Document Examiner. No order was obtained from the Court for examining the document and the Document Examiner was not produced as a witness under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant. Present is clearly a case where the complainant has forged his father’s death certificate to make out the case against the petitioners. Courts below have not dealt with the negative final report and only on the basis of the report of Document Examiner has proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners. Hira Singh vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (Supra) was a case akin to the present case where order of taking cognizance was quashed by the High Court. It is true that High Court in exceptional cases can invoke the inherent powers when party has already availed the

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CRLMP-4017/2015]

¶31

remedy of revision, present case is of an exceptional nature. Petitioners who have entered into agreement to sale with father of the complainant would be forced to undergo a trial when from the evidence collected by the Police in investigation, it is clear that complainant’s father was alive on the date of execution of the agreement to sale and complainant has obtained a forged death certificate by submitting untrue affidavits.

¶32

Criminal Misc. Petition is accordingly allowed. The orders passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside. Proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate Bansoor in case No.23/472/13 are quashed.

¶33

Stay application stands disposed.

¶34

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶35

CHANDAN /7

Motilal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Motilal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhudayal Vs Sunita Baweria and Anr.

Govind Narayan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

A. S. Rajiv S/O Shri Sekhara Panicker Aerathu Govinda Panicker Vs State of Rajasthan

Raeesuddin Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Madan Lal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Saxena Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.