Dismissed

Daulat Ram Sundesha v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2024CRLMP/244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of two criminal miscellaneous petitions. The petitioner in one sought fair investigation into alleged forgery in sale deeds; the petitioner in the other sought quashing of the FIR. Based on a comment favoring the IO's finding of no tampering and delayed objection by the complainant, the court dismissed both petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; SHO directed to submit closure report; No coercive action against accused-petitioners; Complainant-petitioner free to file protest petition if final report is negative.

Daulat Ram Sundesha Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:25798]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 243/2023

¶4

Geeta Devi W/o Deendayal Panwar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward No. 33 Near Manwar Vadika Gandhipura Balotra Barmer Raj. Through Deendayal Panwar Son Of Shankar Lal Who Is Special Power Of Attorney Holder Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 33 Near Manwar Vadika Gandhipura Balotra Barmer Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer

¶9

The S.H.O., Pachpadra Barmer

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 244/2023

¶13

Daulat Ram Sundesha S/o Nenaram, Aged About 57 Years, Ward No. 31 Gandhipura Balotra Dist. Barmer Raj.

¶14

Pukhraj Sundesha S/o Nenaram, Aged About 61 Years, Ward No. 31 Gandhipura Balotra Dist. Barmer Raj.

¶15

Champalal Sundesha S/o Nenaram, Aged About 64 Years, Ward No. 31 Gandhipura Balotra Dist. Barmer Raj.

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶19

Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Deendayal, B/c Mali Ward No. 33 Near Manwar Vatika Balotra Dist. Barmer Raj.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Deendayal Panwar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,PP

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶23

Order

¶24

Order reserved on : 23/05/2024 Order pronounced on : 03/07/2024

¶25

Both the petitions are related to one FIR No.118/2022, Police Station Pachpadra, District Barmer. The criminal misc. petition No.243/2023 has been preferred by the complainant Smt. Geeta Devi seeking fair investigation in the matter and

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:25798]

[CRLMP-243/2023]

the petition No.244/2023 has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR with consent of the parties. Both petitions are heard and decided by this common order.

¶30

Bereft of elaborate details, briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Geeta Devi lodged an FIR No.118/2022, alleging therein that there were two sale deeds pertaining to her deceased father Naina Ram dated 12.07.1996, being document Nos.819/1996 and 820/1996. She alleges that some forgery has been committed in the registered document related to the revenue record of the agricultural land by replacing the actual signature using the technical assistance or mechanism device and the same was used in a civil case pending in the Court. The allegations of interpolation and taking reliance on a false private Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report are also made. Precisely, the allegations are that forgery has been committed in sale deed Nos.819/1996 and 820/1996 with the help of technique. A thorough investigation has been conducted in this matter. 3. On several occasions, this Court had passed necessary directions to the Investigating Officer, including summoning him/her before the Court. A comparison of signatures was also procured from a Handwriting Expert at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Subsequently, in a factual report dated 22.05.2024, it was reported to this Court that after conducting an incisive probe into the matter, the Investigating Agency concluded that the original document

[2024:RJ-JD:25798]

[CRLMP-243/2023]

(3 of 4)

was never tampered with and no forgery was committed using technical assistance.

¶35

Initially, the investigation was conducted by an Inspector. At a subsequent stage, the matter was transferred to a superior Officer for conducting a thorough investigation. Again further investigation was conducted by one Shri Subhash Chand, Additional Superintendent of Police, Balotra. A point-wise analysis has been made in the aforementioned factual report. The same has been kept on record. It is concluded by subsequent verification by Shri Dharmendra Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Balotra that the complainant Geeta Devi was involved in a feud with her brother in connection with the property of her father, for which a civil suit No.41/2008 was also pending in the Revenue Court, Balotra since 2008.

¶36

The ostensible reason for challenge of the complainant regarding the sale deed dated 1996 has been mentioned in the report. It is revealing that for a long period, despite having knowledge of the sale deed dated 1996, the complainant did not raise any objection with regard to the genuineness of the document but after a lapse of many years, she agitated the issue.

¶37

The statement of Shanker Singh, who happened to be witness of the sale deed, was also taken on record and as per him, the several sale deeds have been executed by the lapse of time and the houses of many people have been constructed on the strength of the sale deed executed in the

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:25798]

[CRLMP-243/2023]

year 1991. As on date, a complete colony has been developed there.

¶42

After pondering over the submissions made at par and going through the niceties of the matter, particularly the factual report, it is noteworthy that the issue has been raised at a severely belated stage. At this juncture, tentatively, this Court concurs with the opinion of the Investigating Officer. The investigation report has been prepared and a closure report No.2/2024 has been chalked out.

¶43

In this view of the matter, both the petitions are disposed of. The SHO, PS Balotra is directed to submit the closure report in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate within a period of 40 days after receipt of copy of this order. No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.244/2023. The complainant, who is the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.243/2023, would be at liberty to approach the learned trial Court for redressal of her grievances. In case a negative final report is submitted, she would be at liberty to file a protest petition.

¶44

Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

¶45

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶46

Ashutosh-266-267

Daulat Ram Sundesha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daulat Ram Sundesha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Geeta Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ugma Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan