Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2323 (RAJ)

Durga Ram Dewasi v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-19

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur in revision, whereby, the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 468/2008 framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B I.P.C. was affirmed. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against his brother Inder Kumar in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Jodhpur. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint, Purshottam Das Murjani, the complainant's father was allotted two shops, one being Shop No. C-16 situated at Paota Sabzi Mandi and the other being Shop No. 1 situated at Bhadwasia Krishi Upaj Mandi at Jodhpur. The complainant's father was a wholesale dealer in trade of vegetables. 3. It was stated in the complaint that from the profits of the business, Shri Purshottam Das Murjani deposited various amounts in the FDRs in his own and his wife's name. The complainant's mother Smt. Janki Devi expired on 11.9.2005 and, thereafter, Shri Purshottam Das Murjani, the complainant's father also expired on 7.1.2006. That after his father's death his brother Inder Kumar took care of him as his child for a few months and promised him that he would transfer ownership of the Shop No. 1 situated at Bhadwasia Krishi Upaj Mandi to the complainant. It was also promised that all the deposits and investments made by late Shri Purshottam Das Murjani shall be equally distributed between the two brothers. The accused Inder Kumar thereafter developed ill motive and with the fraudulent intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, profits from business and valuable securities were malafidely usurped by the accused in his own name by creating forged documents. It was also alleged in the complaint that accused Inder Kumar created a forged partnership deed for transfer of the shop in his own name in connivance with the clerks of the Bhadwasia Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. It was alleged that Durga Ram Dewasi, the petitioner herein was the confidante of Inder Kumar and through him, Inder Kumar procured a stamp dated 19.5.2004 for creating a fictitious partnership deed. It was alleged that Durga Ram Dewasi, the petitioner herein was the confidante of Inder Kumar and through him, Inder Kumar procured a stamp dated 19.5.2004 for creating a fictitious partnership deed. Thereafter, Inder Kumar forged a partnership deed in connivance with one Tara Chand so as to banish the complainant from the partnership to which he was entitled. Thereafter, the accused managed to either procure the signatures of his father on a blank stamp paper or that he forged the signatures of late Shri Purshottam Das Murjani on the documents. 4. The complaint thus filed by the complainant was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. The police upon conclusion of the investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner, Inder Kumar and one Devi Singh for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B I.P.C. It was observed in the charge-sheet that the petitioner was also a part of the conspiracy hatched for creation of the forged documents. 5. As per the documents available on the record, the petitioner is a signatory on the Form No. DA-1 for changing the nomination in the bank accounts from Purshottam Das Murjani's name to the name of Inder Kumar. 6. The I.O. during investigation collected the admitted signatures of Shri Purshottam Das Murjani and then forwarded the documents to the FSL for examination. The documents on which the petitioners signatures were found existing during investigation is the nomination Form No. DA-1 dated 8.11.2005. As per the FSL report dated 27.8.2007, the signatures of Shri Purshottam Das Murjani on his nomination form have been opined to be matching and similar with his admitted signatures. 7. The petitioner thus claiming himself to be totally innocent prayed for a discharge from all the offences. 8. The learned Trial Court proceeded to discharge the petitioner from the offence under Section 409 I.P.C., but, framed the charges against him for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. The petitioner challenged the order framing charges by filing a revision and the learned Revisional Court too has affirmed the order framing charges. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Learned Counsel Shri M.K. Garg submitted that there is no direct or indirect oral documentary evidence on the record of the case to show the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. He has referred to Para No. 3 of the complaint and submitted that the highest allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner procured a stamp dated 19.5.2004 and provided the same to Inder Kumar. Learned counsel thus submitted that no stamp bearing the forged signatures of the deceased Purshottam Das Murjani has been recovered during investigation for the preparation whereof the petitioner can be held responsible. He further submitted that the only document i.e. the Nomination From DA-1, on which, the petitioner's signatures exist has been found to be genuine upon its examination by the FSL and, thereafter, there is no material whatsoever available on the record of the case to proceed against the petitioner. Learned counsel thus prayed that the instant misc. petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as Well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Shri Firoz Khan vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner but they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the only document, on which, the petitioner's signatures are available in this case has been found to be genuine upon its examination by the FSL. 11. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's implication in this case is simply on the basis of assumptions, presumptions and conjectures of the complainant and the Investigating Officer. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was a confidante of Inder Kumar and, thus, he must have assisted Inder Kumar in making a false document. The fact remains that the stamp dated 19.5.2004 which the petitioner allegedly procured was not recovered during investigation. Further more, there is no allegation in the complaint that the stamp was tampered by the petitioner. The only document on which the petitioner has signed is the Nomination Form No. DA-1 dated 8.11.2005 executed by Purshottam Das Murjani and which as per the FSL report bears the genuine signatures of late Purshottam Das Murjani. 12. Further more, there is no allegation in the complaint that the stamp was tampered by the petitioner. The only document on which the petitioner has signed is the Nomination Form No. DA-1 dated 8.11.2005 executed by Purshottam Das Murjani and which as per the FSL report bears the genuine signatures of late Purshottam Das Murjani. 12. In view of the above factual scenario, this Court is of the opinion that there is no material available on the record of the case to proceed against the petitioner. 13. It is true that a charge can even be framed against the accused on the basis of a grave suspicion, however, it is equally true that the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the petitioner are based purely on assumptions, conjectures and surmises and nothing beyond that. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B I.P.C. is a gross abuse of the process of the Court and the same deserves to be quashed. 14. Resultantly, this misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur in revision as well as the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No. 468/2008 framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B I.P.C. are hereby quashed to the petitioner's extent.Petition allowed. *******