Dismissed

Sundar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2023CRLMB/6699/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan rejected the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail. The Court found prima facie evidence of forged signatures intended to remove partners from a firm and held that custodial interrogation was necessary to clarify the modus operandi before investigation concluded.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.

Sundar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:34427]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6699/2023

¶4

Sundar Lal S/o Sh. Ramesh Chandra, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 80 Hanuman Marg, Kumaro Ka Bhatta, Opposite M B Collge, Distt.- Udaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Shambhoo Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.Anita Gehlot,P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

11/10/2023

¶13

This application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, in connection with FIR No.182/2020 registered at Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶14

As per prosecution, the complainant Smt. Shanta Devi submitted a complaint before learned Magistrate No.2, Udaipur against the petitioner and Saroj stating inter alia that the complainant is the sole proprietor of firm, M/s. Bhagwan Stone Crusher. It was further stated in the complaint that after 1998, the son of the complainant, namely Sunder Lal (accused petitioner), suggested the complainant that in order to grow the business, the proprietorship/partnership in the firm may be altered. The petitioner was thereupon made partner in the firm, with due

[CRLMB-6699/2023]

[2023:RJ-JD:34427]

(2 of 4)

consent of the complainant. According to the partnership agreement dated 31.08.1998, the firm had the complainant, the complainant's husband, Ramesh Chandra and their two sons, Sundar Lal- petitioner and Trilok Kumawat as partners. The petitioner then got the partnership firm registered with the registrar of firms vide certificate dated 15.01.1999. Since then, the sons of the complainant, namely Sundar Lal,- petitioner and Trilok Kumawat have been conducting business and managing the affairs of the firm. The petitioner, being the elder son, was entrusted by his parents i.e. the complainant and her husband, to conduct and manage the affairs of the firm.

¶19

In the year 2018, when the petitioner and his wife started quarrelling with the complainant and her husband regarding division/partition of the property, the complainant asked for the financial accounts of the firm from the petitioner. The wife of petitioner No.1, Saroj Kumar then told the complainant and her husband that they are no longer partners in the firm and only she and the petitioner are partners in the firm. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had forged the signatures of the complainant in the document dated 1.4.2012 which was registered with the registrar of firms.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in a false case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not at all involved in the commission of alleged crime. It was submitted that the alleged written agreement dated 1.04.2012 had been executed with the consent of the complainant and other partners in the firm M/s.

[2023:RJ-JD:34427]

[CRLMB-6699/2023]

(3 of 4)

Bhagwan Stone Crusher. Learned counsel submitted that a false allegation has been levelled against the petitioner only with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner. It was also submitted that the affairs of the business of the above mentioned firm was being taken care of by the petitioner’s father having possession over all the documents. It was thus submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of the alleged document. Learned counsel further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessitated in the present case; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioner, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.

¶25

Learned counsel thus, prayed that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶26

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned order.

¶28

This Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 directed learned Public Prosecutor to procure the case diary. In compliance of the order, case diary has been produced before this Court.

¶29

From the perusal of the FIR and case diary, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner had forged signatures of the complainant, in order to remove her and other partners from the firm. During investigation, the alleged document dated 01.04.2012, bearing disputed signatures of the complainant Shanta Devi, along with samples of her signatures were sent to

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:34427]

[CRLMB-6699/2023]

Law and Science Laboratory, Udaipur and it was found/concluded in the report submitted by the Laboratory that the document dated 1.4.2012 bearing disputed signatures of Shanta Devi and the samples sent thereof, were different and were found to have been forged.

¶34

This Court from the perusal of the case diary, also finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the modus operandi of the commission of the crime. The validity or genuineness of the alleged document dated 01.04.2012 cannot be examined by this Court while deciding anticipatory bail, particularly when thorough investigation in this regard is yet to be conducted from the accused persons by the investigating agency.

¶35

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at bar, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶36

In wake of aforesaid, the instant application seeking anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶37

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application.

¶38

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶39

Tikam/ Sr.No.169

Sundar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakhi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok @ Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishore Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Padma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan