Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 808 (RAJ)

Daljinder Kaur v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-27

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 233/2012 registered at P.S. Sangaria for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the first informant in this case who has subsequently been arrayed as accused. She filed a First Information Report No. 233/2012 at P.S. Sangaria through a complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegation levelled in the first information report was that the complainant is a resident of village Lambi Dhab. Her parental house is at Village Haripura. She alleged that the accused no. 1 and 2 Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh are her uncle's sons (cousin brothers). She further alleged that her uncle Gurdayal Singh i.e. the father of Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh and her father owned some agricultural land in Chak No. 3 D.N.G and Chak 4 H.R.P. The complainant further alleged that after the expiry of her uncle, the complainant's aunt Sukhmandar Kaur, sons Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh, and uncle's daughters Paramjeet Kaur, Gurmel Kaur, Shanti and Samar Kaur all received a share of her late uncle's land in succession. Gurmel Kaur was residing with her family at Philippines since 1995. The complainant further alleged that she is an illiterate lady and that the accused respondent Baltej and Jogendra Singh, her cousin brothers approached the petitioner at her village Lambi Dhab along with Sukhmandar Kaur, Paramjeet Kaur, Shanti, Samar Kaur, respondent no. 3 Roop Singh and one Mukhtiyar Singh. The accused Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh informed the complainant that their mother Sukhmandar Kaur, sisters Paramjeet Kaur, Shanti and Samar Kaur were relinquishing their share of property in favour of accused no. 1 and 2, and therefore, the complainant should accompany them as a witness. The complainant was having implicit faith in her cousin brothers, and therefore, believing their words she went to Sangaria with them. There the accused got executed a relinquishment deed in their favour on 12.10.1998 and the complainant was made to sign the same as a witness. Thereafter the complainant came back to her village. A few days later she went to her father's village Haripura. There the accused got executed a relinquishment deed in their favour on 12.10.1998 and the complainant was made to sign the same as a witness. Thereafter the complainant came back to her village. A few days later she went to her father's village Haripura. There she came to know that the accused persons conspired together and posing the petitioner to be Gurmel Kaur (the lady who was living in Philippines) and got the share inherited by Gurmel Kaur in Gurdayal Singh's agricultural land relinquished by executing a fraudulent relinquishment deed. The complainant met the accused Baltej and Jogendra Singh and implored them about the fraud committed by them on which she was provided a copy of the relinquishment deed was assured that she had just been made a witness in the relinquishment deed. The complainant met her advocate with the relinquishment deed and was informed that she has been made to stand as Gurmel Kaur when the relinquishment deed was executed. The complainant was taken aback by this revelation and again confronted the accused no. 1 and 2 with this fact. The accused no. 1 and 2 became enraged and threatened her with dire consequences. Ultimately the complainant alleged that the accused no. 1 and 2 were knowing that Gurmel Kaur was living at Philippines since the year 1995 and despite that and in order to cheat and in the furtherance of their conspiracy they fraudulently induced her to impersonate Gurmel Kaur and she was made to sign the relinquishment deed in place of Gurmel Kaur for gaining undue advantage. The complainant finally alleged in her F.I.R. that the relinquishment deed dated 12.10.1998 was forged. 3. The Police registered F.I.R. No. 233/2012 and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the police collected the evidence to the effect that Gurmel Kaur the lady whom the petitioner was made to impersonate had no objection about the relinquishment of her share in the property in favour of her brothers. However, it was found that the petitioner had impersonated Gurmel Kaur in the fraudulent and forged relinquishment deed and thus she along with the co-accused Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh was equally responsible for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. Thus, petitioner, who was the first informant was herself made an accused in the case. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings of F.I.R. to her extent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exfacie the proceedings of the investigation to the extent whereby first informant the petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the case are malafide and deserve to be quashed. He submits that the petitioner is an illiterate lady and she was taken to Sangaria under the premise that she is to sign a document as a witness. He further submits that the petitioner could not have had an iota of doubt that she was being taken to impersonate Gurmel Kaur in the document. He contends that as soon as the petitioner came to know of this fact she herself filed the F.I.R. which clearly establishes her bonafides. He further contends that as Gurmel Kaur has herself ratified the relinquishment deed, there remains no reason to justify the prosecution of the petitioner in this case. He thus prays that the F.I.R. impugned deserves to be quashed qua the petitioner. 5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. Learned P.P. points out that the police after investigation has proposed a charge sheet against Baltej Singh, Jogendra Singh and the petitioner for the offences stated above. He submits that from the admitted facts available on the record, it is evident that the petitioner impersonated Gurmel Kaur and executed the fraudulent relinquishment deed and thus she is equally responsible for the offences and the F.I.R. impugned should not be quashed. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the case diary. An important fact which is available on the case diary is that Gurmel Kaur has been examined during the course of investigation. She in her statement has clearly admitted that she did not have any objection about the relinquishment of her share of the land in favour of her brothers the co-accused Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh. Another fact available on record is that Gurmel's mother Sukhmandar Kaur and sisters Paramjeet Kaur, Shanti and Samar Kaur have also been examined during the course of investigation and they have admitted that they also participated in the execution of the relinquishment deed in which the petitioner is alleged to have impersonated Gumel Kaur. Another fact available on record is that Gurmel's mother Sukhmandar Kaur and sisters Paramjeet Kaur, Shanti and Samar Kaur have also been examined during the course of investigation and they have admitted that they also participated in the execution of the relinquishment deed in which the petitioner is alleged to have impersonated Gumel Kaur. Strangely enough, the police on conclusion of the investigation has not found them to be involved in the conspiracy to forge the document. These four ladies also participated in the execution of the document which fact is admitted on the record. In view of this factual scenario these four ladies who have been examined in the investigation as witnesses were equally responsible in the execution of the document and could not have been left out from the array of the accused if the investigation has been conducted fairly. The I.O. has given these ladies up on the ground that they are illiterate and they could not understand the consequences of their action. The same is the situation of the petitioner also. She is also an illiterate lady and appended her thumb impression on the document placing faith on her cousin brothers aunt and cousin sisters. Admittedly, from the document which was executed, no loss has been caused to anybody because Gurmel Kaur the person who stood to loose from the fraudulent document has virtually ratified the same in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not the beneficiary of the document. That precisely is the conclusion of the I.O. in the factual report available on the case diary. This court is of the opinion that bonafides of the petitioner are also writ large on the record as she has herself approached the Court with the complaint and has requested for prosecution of her own cousin brothers in this case. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the prosecution of the petitioner in this case was totally uncalled for and the investigation officer was not justified in implicating the petitioner as an accused in the case. 7. The miscellaneous petition thus deserves to succeed and the proceeding of F.I.R. No. 233/2012 deserves to be quashed to the extent of the petitioner. 8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The proceedings of the F.I.R. no. 233/2012 are hereby quashed to the extent of the petitioner. 7. The miscellaneous petition thus deserves to succeed and the proceeding of F.I.R. No. 233/2012 deserves to be quashed to the extent of the petitioner. 8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The proceedings of the F.I.R. no. 233/2012 are hereby quashed to the extent of the petitioner. However, the investigation shall continue as regards the other accused.Petition allowed. *******