Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1338 (MP)

Mahesh Singh Tomar v. State of M. P.

2009-12-01

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2009
ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashment of the First Information Report registered against the applicant at Police Station Ambah in Crime No.107/2009 for the offence punishable under section 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 496, 498-A, 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the applicant is a practising lawyer at Ambah. As per the instruction of one Girija Devi he filed a civil suit under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the husband of the plaintiff Girija Devi before the Third Additional District Judge, Ambah which is registered as Civil suit No. 37/2008 and thereafter on the basis of the compromise the said suit has been decreed in favour of Girija Devi. Thereafter, one Mamta Devi had lodged a written complaint before the S.D.O. (P) Ambah alleging that Girija Devi had wrongly stated her to be the legally wedded wife of Vishnu Gupta and also filed a false civil suit against Vishnu Gupta. It is further alleged in this written complaint that actually Mamta Devi is the legally wedded wife of Vishnu Gupta. Thus, Girija Devi and Vishnu Gupta had falsely obtained a forged decree from the Court under section 9 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act. On this written complaint filed by Mamta Devi the police Ambah had registered a case under sections 466, 467, 468,471, 120-B, 496, 498-A, 34 of IPC against one Girija Devi, Vishnu Gupta, Sunita Devi, Pannalal and Kalicharan and also against the present applicant, who being an Advocate had filed the aforesaid civil suit before the Additional District Judge Ambah. On the registration of the FIR against the present applicant, the applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the FIR to the extent of the present applicant. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that there is no averment made by the complainant Mamta Devi in the written complaint against the applicant that he was also involved in this forgery with the said accused Girija Devi and Vishnu Gupta. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that there is no averment made by the complainant Mamta Devi in the written complaint against the applicant that he was also involved in this forgery with the said accused Girija Devi and Vishnu Gupta. He had been made accused in this case only on the ground that he had filed the aforesaid civil suit before the Additional District Judge Ambah. As an Advocate whatever instruction has been given to him by the plaintiff Girija Devi, he had filed the aforesaid civil suit and by filing of the civil suit on the basis of the instruction given by the client the applicant as an Advocate cannot be held guilty for any forgery and thus, the police had wrongly involved the present applicant as an accused in the aforesaid case. Therefore, prayed for quashment of the aforesaid FIR registered against the applicant by the police Ambah. . 5.,6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the petition and prayed for its rejection. 7. Considering the averments made in the written complaint lodged by Mamtabai, the main allegation is against Girija Devi and her husband Vishnu Gupta that both of them had made a conspiracy and filed a civil suit under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and obtained a forged decree from the Court. There is no specific allegation against the applicant that he being an Advocate was also involved in this conspiracy. 8. As an Advocate the applicant has filed the aforesaid civil suit on the basis of the instructions given to him by Girija Devi. It is also pertinent to note that in the order sheet of the concerning case the applicant never appeared before the Court concerned on behalf of Girija Devi and, in such circumstances also, there is no iota of evidence available, on which basis the involvement of the present applicant in this forgery can be found proved. Otherwise also it will be very difficult if in each and every case which is filed by the Advocate on the instruction of his client is also subsequently made an accused for the alleged forgery. In these circumstances, the registration of the FIR against the applicant is found to be illegal and erroneous. 9. Otherwise also it will be very difficult if in each and every case which is filed by the Advocate on the instruction of his client is also subsequently made an accused for the alleged forgery. In these circumstances, the registration of the FIR against the applicant is found to be illegal and erroneous. 9. Resultantly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is held that the Crime No. 107/09 registered at Police Station Ambah against the present applicant for the offence under section 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 496, 498-A of IPC is found to be erroneous and this FIR to the extent of the present applicant is hereby quashed. The FIR against the remaining accused persons stands as it is and the police can proceed according to law against the remaining accused persons. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned.