Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 66 (RAJ)

Kaur Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur in revision as well as the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the A.C.J.M. Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No. 482/1999. 2. The learned trial court by its order dated 29.3.2010 framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and the Revisional Court vide its order dated 16.9.2011 partly accepted the revision of the petitioner and has modified the order by quashing the order to the extent of the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 while maintaining the same for the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. Hence, the instant revision. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a report was lodged by the learned Civil Judge cum Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur with the S.H.O., Sri Karanpur alleging interalia that the petitioner's Jeep had met with an accident and an F.I.R. No. 139/99 was registered in relation thereto at Police Station, Kesrisinghpur for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. The petitioner's jeep No. RNC- 6335 was seized by the police in connection with the investigation of the said F.I.R. 4. The petitioner approached the trial court by way of an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the jeep to him on Supardaginama. During the course of pendency of the application, the matter was posted for arguments on 6.10.1999 and on that day the petitioner's counsel filed the vehicle's Registration Certificate and the Insurance Cover Note in the Court. The Insurance Cover Note No. A.N.020467 was purported to have been issued by the Development Officer Mr. Ashok Khunger of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The insurance cover note was issued by the Development Officer on 5.10.1999 at Malot and on the insurance cover note there was a seal appended that the physical inspection of the vehicle was done at the time of issuing the cover note. 5. The Presiding Officer directed filing of the F.I.R. with the allegation that the cover note issued by Ashok Khunger after alleged physical verification done at Malot on 5.10.1999 was issued fraudulently as the vehicle was lying seized at the Police Station, Keshrisinghpur on that day. 5. The Presiding Officer directed filing of the F.I.R. with the allegation that the cover note issued by Ashok Khunger after alleged physical verification done at Malot on 5.10.1999 was issued fraudulently as the vehicle was lying seized at the Police Station, Keshrisinghpur on that day. The Court issued a notice to the Development Officer Ashok Kunger who submitted a reply stating therein that he physically verified the vehicle at his residence and thereafter issued the cover note. The Presiding Officer was of the opinion that as the physical verification of the vehicle was not possible at the residence of the development officer on 5.10.99, as such the insurance cover note was fraudulently issued for the purpose of taking undue advantage for receiving back the vehicle on Supardaginama. On the basis of the said report forwarded by the Presiding Officer, an F.I.R. No. 188 was registered at P.S. Sri Karanpur and investigation commenced. At the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and the development officer Ashok Khunger for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 488, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. The trial court framed the charges against both the accused. 6. The co-accused Ashok Khunger challenged the order framing charges by filing a revision and the Revisional Court by its order dated 23.5.2009 discharged the development officer from all the offences. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application before the learned trial court seeking discharge on the ground that as Ashok Khunger who was the principal accused in the case had been discharged by the Revisional Court, the proceedings should be dropped qua him also. The petitioner's application was rejected by the trial court by the order dated 29.3.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur by way of a revision which too has been rejected as stated above. Hence, the instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings going on against the petitioner. 7. Mr. H.S.Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principal allegation of preparation of the fraudulent document is against Ashok Khunger. He submits that Ashok Khunger has been discharged from all the offences vide the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Revisional Court, and therefore, permitting trial of the case to be continued against the petitioner in this matter would be nothing short of gross abuse of the process of Court. He submits that Ashok Khunger has been discharged from all the offences vide the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Revisional Court, and therefore, permitting trial of the case to be continued against the petitioner in this matter would be nothing short of gross abuse of the process of Court. He further contends that even if the allegations of the prosecution are accepted to be true at its highest, then too no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against the petitioner. He also contends that if at all, anybody was cheated by the alleged fraudulent procurement of the insurance cover note, it could have been the Insurance Company. He submits that neither the insurance claim has been sought nor procured on the basis of the allegedly forged cover note, and therefore, the order framing charge as well as of the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and record. 10. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the document which is alleged to be fraudulently issued is the insurance cover note and was issued by Shri Ashok Khunger the development officer of the Insurance Company. The act of fraud which has been alleged in relation to the cover note is that the same was issued at Malot showing physical verification of the vehicle having been carried out at Malot whereas the physical verification was not possible to be conducted at Malot at all. The Court has concluded that the vehicle was lying seized at the Police Station, Sri Karanpur, and therefore, the note regarding the physical verification of the vehicle having been carried out at Malot was an incorrect note thereby justifying the order framing charges. As has already been stated above, the document which is alleged to be forged document is the insurance cover note which was issued by the development officer the co-accused Ashok Khunger. The development officer Mr. Ashok Khunger challenged the order framing charges by filing a revision and the revisional court has quashed the order by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner has been charged for the offence of conspiring to cheat. The development officer Mr. Ashok Khunger challenged the order framing charges by filing a revision and the revisional court has quashed the order by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner has been charged for the offence of conspiring to cheat. As the principal accused who is alleged to have created the fraudulent document has already been discharged by the competent court then there cannot be any logic or reason for permitting the petitioner's prosecution in this case for conspiring to procure very same document. That apart the insurance cover note is a document which gives an entitlement to the holder of the insurance cover note to claim certain benefits from the Insurance Company. If the insurance cover note had been issued fraudulently and was sought to be utilised then the person cheated would be Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has not raised any issue about the document having been issued fraudulently. Therefore, in the opinion, of this Court the order framing charge against the petitioner as well as all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder cannot be said to be justified. 11. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 16.9.2011 and the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate are hereby quashed and all the proceedings taken against the petitioner in this case are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******