Partly allowed

Om Veer Singh and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC15 May 2024CRLMP/1473/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed impugned orders framing charges for cheating and forgery in part. Proceedings against the deceased petitioner were dismissed as abated. Charges against the surviving petitioner were remanded to the trial court for fresh framing due to lack of direct evidence of conspiracy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders framing charges quashed and set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration on framing charges.

Om Veer Singh and Anr. Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23065]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1473/2010

¶4

Om Veer Singh S/o Shri Makhan Singh, resident of 75 Navghat, Udaipur

¶5

Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Ramadhar Singh, resident of 75, Navghat Udaipur

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶9

Smt. Gayatri Singh W/o Sanjay Singh, resident of 75 Navghat, Udaipur

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Rahul Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
	Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, for the
	complainant

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶13

Order

¶14

15/05/2024

¶15

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 20.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No.29/2010, whereby the revision petition filed against the order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 (South), Udaipur framing charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B and 471/120-B of the IPC has been rejected.

[2024:RJ-JD:23065]

[CRLMP-1473/2010]

(2 of 5)

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Gayatri Devi lodged a report at the Police Station Bhupalpura to the effect that she had a self-acquired property at 75, Navghat Udaipur and after obtaining requisite permission, she had also raised construction on it. It is alleged that while keeping her in dark, her husband, the petitioner No.2 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, got executed a power of attorney in his favour, which she later on cancelled by publishing a public notice on 20.09.2001. However, the petitioner No.2 had conspired with the petitioner No.1 and had executed an agreement to sale on 29.07.2001 in relation to the aforesaid property of the complainant. It was alleged that this agreement to sale has some interpolations and it is a fabricated document. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.23/2007 was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, wherein after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners. The learned court below after hearing the parties, framed charges against the petitioners in the manner stated above. The revision petition preferred against the said order has been dismissed by the learned revisional court. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the instant criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.2 Sanjay Kumar Singh, who happened to the husband of the complainant, has passed away. Learned counsel contends that even if for the arguments' sake it is assumed that the allegations levelled by the complainant have some worth, then too only the petitioner No.2 (since deceased)

[2024:RJ-JD:23065]

[CRLMP-1473/2010]

(3 of 5)

was the only beneficiary in the transaction and the petitioner No.1, who bonafidely executed the agreement to sale as a buyer, had nothing to do with the alleged acts of fraud or conspiracy. Thus, the learned courts below have committed grave error while framing charge against him and affirming the same. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that merely on the basis of certain corrections in handwriting with initials appended, a document cannot be said to be forged or fabricated. He submits that even the complainant herself has not levelled any allegation against the petitioner No.1 regarding inducement or cheating. After execution of the agreement of sale, no actual transfer of ownership by way of registry has happened. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner No.1 may be discharged from the offences and as the petitioner No.1 is no more, no criminal proceeding can lie against him.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that the orders passed by the courts below are well reasoned orders and no interference therein is called for.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

¶27

The main allegations of cheating, forgery and inducement have been levelled by the complainant against her husband the petitioner No.2 Sanjay Kumar, who has passed away. " Actio

[2024:RJ-JD:23065]

[CRLMP-1473/2010]

(4 of 5)

personalis moritur cum persona - personal action dies with the person" is the rule of criminal jurisprudence. Thus, the proceedings against the petitioner No.2 cannot be continued and accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as abated to the extent of the petitioner No.2.

¶32

So far as the petitioner No.1 Om Veer Singh is concerned, the property in question was agreed to be sold to him by the petitioner No.2, being the power of attorney holder of the complainant, and certain amount was paid by him to the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 may have been a bonafide buyer. A perusal of the material placed on record is revealing that there has been no transaction in between the complainant of this case and the petitioner No.1. No concrete material is available on the record to infer that the complainant was induced or cheated at the hands of the petitioner No.1. All the main accusations are against the petitioner No.2, who is no more. Prima facie there is no material to show connivance or conspiracy in between the petitioners No.1 and 2. The pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has some worth. In these circumstance, the principle of equity demands that the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for afresh consideration on the point of framing charges.

¶33

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 (South), Udaipur framing charges against the petitioners as well as the order dated 20.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

[2024:RJ-JD:23065]

[CRLMP-1473/2010]

(5 of 5)

No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No.29/2010 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial court for fresh consideration on the point of charge, who shall hear the parties again and then pass a fresh speaking order as per the mandate of Section 239-240 of the CrPC without being influenced by any observation made in this order. The miscellaneous petition is disposed of with the above directions. A copy of this order be forwarded to the trial court forthwith.

¶38

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶39

652-Pramod/-

Om Veer Singh and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Veer Singh and Anr. v. State

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

Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Junjhar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raman Vs State of Rajasthan

Sau Khan and Anrr Vs State and Anr.

Bimla Bai Vs State

Achlaram Vs State of Rajasthan