ORDER : 1. By the instant misc. petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for numerous reliefs. ORDER : 1. By the instant misc. petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for numerous reliefs. The relief clause of the petition, in vernacular, is reproduced as under: “vr% Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226&227] Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk 1860 o ifjokfjd U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dj izkFkhZuh Jheku th ls izkFkZuk djrh gS fd & v-eqdnek u- 60@2013 dh i=koyh dks vf/kuLr U;k;ky; ls ryc dj QkStnkjh izdj.k l- 69@2013 ds vUos"k.k ds nkSjku izLrqr vk{ksfir izkFkZuk i= fnukad 17@4@2013 dk dwVjfpr gksuk lkfcr gks x;k gSA rRdkyhu Fkkuk vf/kdkjh fueZyk fc'uksbZ o mlds lg;ksxh j?kwohj }kjk vU; ls feydj fd;s x;s vijk/k dh izFke lwpuk izkFkhZ;k }kjk vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªSV izFke oxZ guqekux<+ dks nh tk pqdh gS vkSj ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ml ij tkap Hkh djokbZ xbZ gS A iqfyl }kjk ,Qvkj is'k djus ds i'pkr vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 17@4@2013 ds izkFkhZ;k o izkFkhZ;k ds firk ds gLrk{kj;qDr fookfnr nLrkost dh ,Q,l,y djok;s tkus ds i'pkr izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij fueZyk fc'uksbZ o j?kwohj }kjk vU; ls feydj fd;k x;k vijk/k lkfcr gks x;k gS A bl ij u;s fljs ls eqdnek ntZ dj tkap djokuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS A vr% fueZyk fc'uksbZ o vU; ds f[kykQ izlaKku ysus ds vkns'k nsosaA vk- ekuuh; U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªSV izFke oxZ ds in ij vklhu fguk ifjgkj] lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd y[kfoUnz flWag }kjk inks ads nq:i;ksx dj eqfYtekuksa dks ykHk igqaPkkus dk vijk/k dkfjr djus ij l[r ls l[r dkuwuh o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k nsosaA bZ- ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k guqekux<+ ds in ij vklhu jktsUnz izlkn ikjhd }kjk fnukad 8@11@2013 dks fguk ifjgkj] y[kfoUnz flWag] fueZyk fc'uksbZ] j?kwohj o vU; dks n.M ls cpkus ds mn~ns'; ls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa feF;k fjiksVZ izLrqr djus ij l[r ls l[r dkuwuh o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k nsosaA bZ- rRdkyhu vfr- iqfyl v/kh{kd tLlkjke cksl] rRdkyhu iqfyl v/kh{kd dSyk'k pUnz fc'uksbZ ds lkFk lkFk x.ks'k dqekj iq= gsrjke , ,l vkbZ iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk guqekux<+] nfj;k flWag iq= Lo- Jh jrhjke gSM dkfu- u- 110 iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk guqekux<] dfiy eqfu iq= Jh HkkxhjFk dkfu- u- 581 iqfyl Fkkuk lnj guqekux<] Jhefr vuhrk iRuh izeksn dqekj vkj efgyk dkfu- u- 1172 iqfyl Fkkuk guqekux< o vU; }kjk fueZyk fc'uksbZ] j?kwohj o vU; dks U;kf;d izfdz;k esa ykHk igqapkus dk vijk/k dkfjr djus ij l[r ls l[r dkuwuh o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k nsosaA m- fnukad 2@5@2013 dks efgyk vkj{kh dSUnz] guqekux< }kjk ekuuh; U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªSV izFke oxZ esa izLrqr tkap fjiksVZ dks 'kqU; ekurs gq, mDr i=koyh dks vfxze vuqla/kku ds fy, Hkstk tk, vkSj eqfYtekuksa dks /kkjk 406 ds varxZr ltk ds gdnkj ekurs gq, mudh fxjrkjh ds vkns'k nsosa D;ksa fd izkFkhZuh dk leLr L=h/ku vkt Hkh eqfYtekuksa ds dCts esa gSA Å- ekuuh; ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; esa U;k;k/kh'k ds in ij vklhu enu xksiky O;kl o vf/koDrk pUnz dSyk'k Lokeh ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e ds fo:) tkucw> dj fo/khfo:/k dk;Zokgh;ka djus ij l[r ls l[r dkuwuh o foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds vkns'k nsosaA _- vU; dksbZ vuqrks’k tks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; izkFkhZuh ds gd esa mfpr le>saA“ 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner submitted a criminal complaint against her husband, in-laws and maternal uncle-in-law with a specific allegation that they are harassing her for bringing inadequate dowry and have also given her beating. She has also charged the accused persons for criminal misappropriation of her ‘‘Streedhan’’ under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. The complaint filed before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hanumangarh (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) was sent for investigation under sub-sec.(3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. to Mahila Police Station, Hanumangarh and investigation in the matter was conducted by second respondent as SHO of the police station. The petitioner has leveled serious allegations against second respondent in the petition by stating that she was hand in glove with her husband and other members of in-laws family and with a view to help them pressurized her to sign a written compromise but she declined. As per petitioner, later on second respondent forged her signature on a written compromise and relying on the said compromise submitted a false final report before the learned trial Court. Besides second respondent, the petitioner has also attributed vital role of her other subordinates in the entire episode. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid action of second respondent, as per petitioner, she preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12878 of 2013 and, while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed for FSL Examination of her signatures and the signatures of her father on the disputed documents, which were part of Criminal Case No.60/2013 pending before the learned trial Court. It is with all these allegations the petitioner has castigated all the respondents including a judicial officer in her petition by arraying them as party to the litigation. 3. On behalf of the State, petition is contested and written submissions are also filed. In the return, the State has submitted that on receipt of complaint for investigation, as ordered by the learned trial Court under sub-sec.(3) of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., Sub Inspector Smt. Nirmala Bishnoi commenced investigation and recorded statements of complainant and other witnesses. State has taken stand that during investigation complainant submitted a letter to the investigating officer stating therein that ‘Streedhan’ is with her and at that time she was accompanied by her father Vasudev. State has taken stand that during investigation complainant submitted a letter to the investigating officer stating therein that ‘Streedhan’ is with her and at that time she was accompanied by her father Vasudev. Later on, SHO submitted charge-sheet under Section 498A and 323 IPC before the learned trial Court. As per the stand of State, petitioner-complainant on 21st of July 2013 made endeavor to get signatures of herself and signatures of her father examined by one Sumsher Singh, FC Consultant, Hisar, Haryana and thereafter submitted application before the learned trial Court and thereupon the said application was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh by the learned trial Court on 29th of July 2013. The Superintendent of Police sent it to the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh for inquiry by letter dated 8th of August 2013. The Addl. S.P. Hanumangarh made endeavor to conduct threadbare inquiry and in the course of inquiry recorded statements of complainant Smt. Dhanwanti Devi, her father Vasudev and witnesses Ghanshayam Das, Kanayalal, Kishan Lal, Vijay Pasvani and some of the independent witnesses viz., Raghuveer Prasad, Bheemsen, Jagdish, Ganesh Kumar ASI, Dariya Singh Head Constable No.110, Kapil Dev Constable No. 581, Smt. Anita Mahila Constable No 1172, Roshan Lal and Ramesh Kumar. While inquiring, the Addl. Superintendent of Police also solicited reply from the hand-writing expert Shri Sumsher Singh Malik. The documents with signature of the petitioner-complainant were examined and letters were issued in the name of petitioner on 7.10.2013, 17.10.2013 and 28.10.2013 for obtaining her signature but the petitioner did not pay any heed to the repeated requests and photostat copy of the document was not made available. At the behest of Addl. Superintendent of Police, endeavor was made to obtain original letter, which was available in the Court file of the learned trial Court and in this behalf letters dated 19.09.2013 and 25.09.2013 were addressed to the Court but not made available being part of the judicial record. When the inquiry by Addl. Superintendent of Police was in progress, witnesses Vijay Pasvani, Reghuveer Prasad, Bheemsen and Jagdish made statements that petitioner Dhanwanti Devi and her father Vasudev signed a typed letter which was compromise arrived at on 17.04.2013 before the SHO. The version of these witnesses is also endorsed by Shri Ganesh Kumar ASI, Shri Dariya Singh, HC Head Mohrir, Mahila Police Station, Kapil Constable and Smt. Anita, Mahila Constable. Finally, Addl. The version of these witnesses is also endorsed by Shri Ganesh Kumar ASI, Shri Dariya Singh, HC Head Mohrir, Mahila Police Station, Kapil Constable and Smt. Anita, Mahila Constable. Finally, Addl. Superintendent of Police, after completion of inquiry submitted report before the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh on 31st of October 2013 and later on Shri Kailash Bishnoi, the then Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh sent the inquiry report to the learned trial Court. In the return, it is also submitted by the State that thereafter petitioner submitted writ petition No. 12878 of 2013 before this Court for recovery of her ‘Streedhan’ and said writ petition was disposed of by the Court with a direction to the learned trial Court to get signatures of the petitioner and her father examined by FSL. In the FSL report, signature did not match and that being so, the learned trial Court ordered registration of case under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC on 11.11.2014 at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, wherein investigation is still pending. The allegations leveled by petitioner against the Addl. Superintendent of Police as well as Superintendent of Police are specifically denied by the State in its reply. It is further reiterated in the reply that the factum of compromise is also endorsed by the independent witnesses and therefore all allegations are false and concocted. Reference is also made in the reply about application submitted by the petitioner before Lokadalat wherein she has put her signature as Dhanwanti Devi whereas in the complaint dated 23rd of March 2013 she has signed Dhanwanti only. It is clarified in the return that taking into account admission of the petitioner that her ‘Streedhan’ is lying with her, charge under Section 406 IPC was not slapped against the accused petitioners and charge under Section 498A and 323 IPC was framed against them. The State has also very emphatically submitted in the reply that after registration of case against accused persons, petitioner and her father were called upon from time to time for appearing at Police Station but she and her father avoided their appearance on one pretext or the other. The investigating officer also went to her house for investigation but she was not available and her brother informed that she was out of station. Notices were also issued to obtain her signature and signature of her father but of no avail. The investigating officer also went to her house for investigation but she was not available and her brother informed that she was out of station. Notices were also issued to obtain her signature and signature of her father but of no avail. In totality, the stand of the State is that the petitioner and her father have not cooperated with the investigating officer to unearth the truth about forgery of their signatures so as to complete investigation against accused persons for offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Progress in the case filed against accused Roshan Lal for offence under Section 498A and 323 IPC is also highlighted inasmuch as it is submitted in the reply that charges have been framed in the matter and the Court has called prosecution witnesses for examination. It is also mentioned in the reply that application submitted by the petitioner for further investigation is turned down by the learned trial Court. Reference is also made about stay order passed by this Court for staying further proceedings in the case. In totality, all the allegations made by the petitioner in misc. petition are refuted with emphasis by the State and it is pleaded that petitioner has adopted a defiant and stubborn attitude which is the main cause for delay in investigation against some of the accused persons who are charged for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 4. At the first instance, on 13.04.2015, the Court called Case Diary in the matter. Later on, when the matter came up again before the Court on 20.04.2915, the Court observed that essentially the petitioner is dismayed with the investigating agency and the manner in which the investigation is conducted. Therefore, considering the matter, prima facie, Court passed following order. “This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner while praying certain reliefs. After hearing the petitioner, present in person, this Court feels that basically petitioner is being aggrieved with the action of the police, whereby while conducting investigation into the FIR No.60/2013 of Police Station, Women, District Hanumangarh, the police has concluded that offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is not made out against the accused persons. After hearing the petitioner, present in person, this Court feels that basically petitioner is being aggrieved with the action of the police, whereby while conducting investigation into the FIR No.60/2013 of Police Station, Women, District Hanumangarh, the police has concluded that offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is not made out against the accused persons. The basis of the above conclusion, that the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is not made out, was a letter dated 17.04.2013, alleged to have been written by the petitioner wherein she has admitted that her Stridhan is with her. The petitioner has contended that she has not signed the said letter and in view of that this Court vide order dated 10.03.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12878/2013 (Dhanvanti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has ordered for sending the letter dated 17.04.2013 for examination by handwriting expert of Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the FSL report, the application does not contain the signature of the petitioner. Thereafter, as per the direction issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh dated 16.10.2014, the FIR No.620/2014 was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh. The investigation into the FIR No.620/2014 is pending. As stated earlier the main grievance of the petitioner is that the police has not conducted investigation in fair manner in relation to the allegations levelled by her for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The petitioner is praying that the police be directed to further investigate into the allegation of the offences punishable under Section 406 IPC. This Court is of the opinion that before issuance of any direction to the police to further investigate into the allegations levelled by the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, the accused Roshan Lal S/o Ramesh Kumar is required to be heard. At the request of petitioner, the accused Roshan Lal S/o Ramesh Kumar is made party respondent No.10 in this criminal misc. petition. The petitioner is allowed to add the name of Roshan Lal S/o Ramesh Kumar in the cause title of this criminal misc. petition by hand in the Court itself. Issue notice to the respondent No.10, returnable on 22.05.2015. At the request of petitioner, the accused Roshan Lal S/o Ramesh Kumar is made party respondent No.10 in this criminal misc. petition. The petitioner is allowed to add the name of Roshan Lal S/o Ramesh Kumar in the cause title of this criminal misc. petition by hand in the Court itself. Issue notice to the respondent No.10, returnable on 22.05.2015. The notice upon the respondent No.10 be served through the SHO, Police Station, Hanumangarh Jn., District Hanumangarh, who is present in person and he is also instructed to get the notice of the respondent No.10 served positively by the next date of hearing. The SHO, Police Station, Hanumangarh Jn., District Hanumangarh is also directed to expedite the investigation conducted by him in connection with the FIR No.620/2014. Learned Government Advocate undertakes to file reply to this criminal misc. petition today itself. A copy of the reply be served upon the petitioner personally. Let this matter be listed on 22.05.2015. Meanwhile, further proceedings in Criminal Original Case No.69/2013 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumnagarh shall remain stayed.” 5. Pursuant to the said order, the showing compliance of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12878 of 2013 FSL Report was produced before the Court. It is also pertinent to note here that in the interregnum the matter was sent to mediation centre attached with the Court for exploring possibility of settlement but the terms of the settlement could not be arrived at between the parties and therefore vide order dated 3rd of August 2015, Court has recorded that the matter cannot be settled. When again the matter came up before the Court on 26th of November 2015, considering the fact that as per FSL Report the document does not bear the signature of the petitioner, the Court pleased to pass following order: “As directed on 15.10.2015, Mr. Gaurav Yadav, S.P., Hanumangarh and Mr. Narayan Singh, the then I.O., P.S. Hanumangarh Junction are present in Court. The case involves a chequered history. While filing the result of investigation of FIR No.60/2013 lodged by the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh, a compromise document was filed by the I.O. Ms. Nirmala Vishnoi, respondent no.2, for leaving out the accused other than the husband of the petitioner/complainant. While filing the result of investigation of FIR No.60/2013 lodged by the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh, a compromise document was filed by the I.O. Ms. Nirmala Vishnoi, respondent no.2, for leaving out the accused other than the husband of the petitioner/complainant. The complainant claimed that the document was forged and did not bear her signature. She filed a complaint to this effect before the S.P. Hanumangarh but no action was taken thereupon. Upon this, the petitioner filed this criminal writ petition before this Court praying for fair investigation. This Court took cognizance of the petitioner’s grievance. The original document was directed to be sent to the F.S.L. for comparison from where a report was received that the document does not bear the petitioner’s signatures. Pursuant to the receipt of the said F.S.L. report, another FIR No.620/2014 was registered in relation to the forgery of the compromise document. It appears that during the course of investigation of FIR No.260/2014, virtually for collecting defence evidence for the accused, a photostat copy of the said document purportedly available in the file of C.O., Hanumangarh was again sent for F.S.L. examination from where a report was received that the signatures of the present petitioner on the compromise document match with her specimen signatures. Thus, now there is a predicament/uncertainty in the proceedings in as much as, the original document dated 17.4.2013 has been opined by the F.S.L. to be forged whereas the alleged photostat copy of the said document has been opined by the F.S.L. to be having the petitioner’s genuine signatures. The petitioner has cast aspersions on the motive of the investigating agency in sending the photostat copy of the document to the F.S.L. when the original had already been examined by the F.S.L. earlier. This Court has come across numerous cases wherein it is found that the F.S.L. refuses to compare the Photostat copies of the documents. Be that as it may, at this stage, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2 Ms. Nirmala Vishnoi and the accused respondent no.10 Roshan Lal request some time may be given to explore the possibility of a genuine settlement between the parties. List the matter on 3.12.2015. The presence of S.P., Hanumangarh is dispensed with for the next date.” 6. Be that as it may, at this stage, learned counsel representing the respondent no.2 Ms. Nirmala Vishnoi and the accused respondent no.10 Roshan Lal request some time may be given to explore the possibility of a genuine settlement between the parties. List the matter on 3.12.2015. The presence of S.P., Hanumangarh is dispensed with for the next date.” 6. When the matter came up before the Court on 24th of May 2016, learned Addl. Advocate General informed the Court that specimen signatures of one of the witnesses have been sent for FSL examination, however, its report is awaited. Finally, the report of the FSL is produced today on 12th of August 2016. Along with the FSL Report, factual report of SHO, Police Station Hanunangarh Junction, District Hanuamangarh, is also produced before the Court. 7. I have heard petitioner in person, learned Addl. Advocate General and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.10 and perused the materials available on record. With the assistance of learned Addl. Advocate General, I have also scanned the case diary and the factual report dated 11th of August 2016 submitted on behalf of the State. 8. At the outset, I am constrained to observe that the petitioner out of over enthusiasm has made an affirmative attempt to blow out of proportion a very trivial issue which is really a matter of grave and serious concern. She has arrayed Senior Judicial Officers, Assistant Public Prosecutor and the lawyer as respondents and levelled reckless allegations against them by using intemperate language. True it is that she is well within her rights to ventilate her grievances against the investigating agency or the officers who were in helm of affairs during investigation but then for redressal of her such grievances remedy was very much available to her under the Cr.P.C. or before the judicial forums. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in impleading Judicial Officers, Lawyer and Assistant Public Prosecutor as respondent cannot be excused and her this conduct deserves reprimand by the Court. 9. Be that as it may, petitioner being a lady, who is harassed by her husband and is appearing in person to pursue her case before this Court, I feel inclined to examine her afflictions by overlooking her conduct. 9. Be that as it may, petitioner being a lady, who is harassed by her husband and is appearing in person to pursue her case before this Court, I feel inclined to examine her afflictions by overlooking her conduct. I also feel inclined to examine her grievances sans all her omissions, taking into consideration the fact that she is not equipped with law and well conversant with the procedure. 10. The only question, pivotal in the instant petition and which will decide the fate of respondent No.2 and 10 in particular, is the genuineness of application allegedly submitted by petitioner duly signed by her and her father before the then SHO Mahila Police Station, Hanumangarh on 17.04.2013 to compromise her disputes with her in-laws with a recital to the effect that she is having her ‘Streedhan’ with herself. The petitioner has come out with a specific case that neither the said application was signed by her nor her father signed it and as such signatures of both the incumbents on the said application are forged and spurious. Her version is based on the opinion of a private handwriting expert to whom she hired viz., Shri Sumsher Siingh Malik from Hisar, Haryana. The specimen signatures of the petitioner and her father, which were found to be genuine by the private handwriting expert, are got examined from FSL by the investigating agency pursuant to the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12878 of 2013. As per FSL report dated 11th of June 2014, there are dissimilarities with the standard signatures of both these incumbents. The complete text of the report of the FSL showing result of the examination reads as under: REPORT STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, RAJASTHAN, NEHRU NAGAR, JAIPUR-302016 REPORT ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 293 CR.P.C. REPORT NO. FSL/JPR/QD/173/14 Reference Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate I Class, Hanumangarh Letter No. 405 Date: 30.05.2014 Case No. 69/13 State Vs. Roshanlal FIR No.60/13 Under Section --- Police Station --- Distt. Hanumangarh FSL Receipt No. 6906 Date: 04.06.2014 Mode of Receipt By Regd. Dak DESCRIPLTION OF PACKETS The Packets one envelope by Regd. Dak. DESCRIPLTION OF ARTICLES DISPUTED: Q1TOQ3 Blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked in ballpen on an application to S.H.O. Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh of dated 17.04.2013. STANDARD 01 A1 to A18 Specimen signatures purported to be of Smt. Dhanwanti Devi . . . Dak DESCRIPLTION OF PACKETS The Packets one envelope by Regd. Dak. DESCRIPLTION OF ARTICLES DISPUTED: Q1TOQ3 Blue enclosed signatures stamped and marked in ballpen on an application to S.H.O. Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh of dated 17.04.2013. STANDARD 01 A1 to A18 Specimen signatures purported to be of Smt. Dhanwanti Devi . . . 09 Sheets A19to A32 Admitted signatures purported to be of Smt. Dhanwanti Devi . . . 10 Sheets 02 B1 to B18 Specimen signatures purported to be of Sh. Vasudev . . . 09 Sheets B19 & B20 Specimen signatures purported to be of Sh. Vasudev . . . 01 Sheet and extra one sheet PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION Determination of authorship RESULT OF EXAMINATION As a result of very careful and thorough scientific examination of the documents referred to overleaf with the help of the scientific aids available in the division the following conclusion have been arrived at: The disputed signatures marked as Q1 and Q2 show dissimilarities with the standard signatures marked as A1 to A32. GROUNDS 11. The disputed and the standard signatures show dissimilarities in general writing habits such as skill, speed, slant, spacing, relative seize and proportion of letters, point load, alignment, movement etc. Standards show consistency on interse examination. 12. The disputed and the standard signatures show dissimilarities in individual writing habits. Some of the important points of dissimilarities are mentioned below:- 1. Different execution of Hindi letter ‘Dha’ nature of body movement and placement on staff. 2. Different manner of Hindi letter ‘Va’ nature of start, body movement and body placement on staff. 3. Different habit of Hindi letter ‘Ta’ nature of start, body movement and its finish. 4. Different execution of Hindi letter ‘Da’ nature of start and body movement. 5. Different manner of Hindi letter ‘Na’ nature of body knot formation and its placement. 6. Different habit of vowel sign of ‘Ae’. 7. Different nature of arrangement of letters in the signatures. Cumulative consideration of aforesaid points of dissimilarities are sufficient and significant enough when considered together leads to conclusion. 2. The disputed signature marked as Q3 shows dissimilarities with the standard signatures marked as B1 to B20. GROUNDS 13. The disputed and the standard signatures show dissimilarities in general writing habits such as skill, speed, slant, spacing, relative size and proportion of letters, point load, alignment, movement etc. Standards show consistency of interse examination. 14. 2. The disputed signature marked as Q3 shows dissimilarities with the standard signatures marked as B1 to B20. GROUNDS 13. The disputed and the standard signatures show dissimilarities in general writing habits such as skill, speed, slant, spacing, relative size and proportion of letters, point load, alignment, movement etc. Standards show consistency of interse examination. 14. The disputed and the standard signatures show dissimilarities in individual writing habits. Some of the important points of dissimilarities are mentioned below:- 1. Different execution of Hindi letter ‘Va’ nature of body movement and placement of staff. 2. Different manner of Hindi letter ‘Sa’ nature of body movement and its finish. 3. Different habit of Hindi letter ‘Da’ nature of start, body movement and its finish. 4. Different habit of vowel sign of ‘U’ & ‘Ae’. 5. Different nature of arrangement of letters in the signatures. Cumulative consideration of aforesaid points of dissimilarities are sufficient and significant enough when considered together leads to conclusion (S.K. Pant) Asstt. Director State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur” 15. Yet again in second attempt, the signatures of petitioner and her father were sent for FSL examination and in the FSL report similarities were reiterated with their disputed photostat signatures. The result of the examination of FSL report dated 19.06.2015 reads as under: RESULT OF EXAMINATION 16. As a result of very careful and thorough scientific examination of the documents referred to overleaf with the help of scientific aids such as VSC-6000 and Sterio Zoom Microscope, the following conclusions have been arrived at:- 1. The blue enclosed disputed photocopy signature stamped and marked as Q4, Q5 shows similarities with the blue enclosed standard stamped and marked as A1 to A32. The report is subject to be verification that disputed Q4, Q5 are true and faithful reproduction of the original. Grounds 17. The disputed and standard signatures are written freely and agree with each other in general writing characteristics such as movement, skill, alignment, spacing, slant, speed, pen presentation, relative size, proportion of letter etc; with natural variation Standards also show consistency on interse examination. 18. The disputed and standard signatures also agrees with each other in some of individual writing characteristics such as general body movement, nature of start, nature of finish, direction of finish, spur movements, body axis and alignment, habit of writing top scoring. 19. 18. The disputed and standard signatures also agrees with each other in some of individual writing characteristics such as general body movement, nature of start, nature of finish, direction of finish, spur movements, body axis and alignment, habit of writing top scoring. 19. Cumulative consideration of above said points of similarities are sufficient and significant to arrive at the above said conclusion. These points of similarities are not due to accidental coincidence. 2. The blue enclosed disputed photocopy signature stamped and marked as Q6 shows similarities with the blue enclosed standard stamped and marked as B1 to A20. 20. The report is subject to be verification that disputed Q6 is true and faithful reproduction of the original. Grounds 21. The disputed and standard signatures are written freely and agree with each other in general writing characteristics such as movement, skill, alignment, spacing, slant, speed, pen presentation, relative size, proportion of letter etc; with natural variation Standards also show consistency on interse examination. 22. The disputed and standard signatures also agrees with each other in some of individual writing characteristics such as general body formation, body movements, body axis, relative size of body, oval, nature of start, nature and direction of finish of storkes, body curvatures, loop formation, habit of writing top scoring. 23. Cumulative consideration of above said points of similarities are sufficient and significant to arrive at the above said conclusion. These points of similarities are not due to accidental coincidence. 24. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh has made sincere endeavor to make a thorough inquiry into the matter by entrusting the same to Addl. Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh and the Addl. Superintendent of Police in the report dated 31st of October 2013 has found all the allegations of petitioner far from truth. In his report, the Addl. Superintendent of Police has also observed that some of the independent witnesses and police personnels have stated in clear and unequivocal terms that petitioner has entered into compromise with her in-laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and maternal uncle-in-law and therefore charge-sheet for offence under Section 498A and 323 IPC has rightly been filed against her husband alone. In his report, the Addl. Superintendent of Police has also observed that some of the independent witnesses and police personnels have stated in clear and unequivocal terms that petitioner has entered into compromise with her in-laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and maternal uncle-in-law and therefore charge-sheet for offence under Section 498A and 323 IPC has rightly been filed against her husband alone. Now, a latter FSL report dated 29th of July 2016 is also brought to the notice of the Court wherein signatures of respondent No.2 and Constable Raghuveer Singh were subjected to FSL Examination, which both of them appended on the final report submitted before the learned trial Court. Result of the examination reads as under: RESULT OF EXAMINATION 25. As a result of very careful and thorough scientific examination of the documents referred to overleaf with the help of scientific aids such as VSC-6000 and Sterio Zoom Microscope, the following conclusions have been arrived at:- 1. The blue enclosed disputed signature stamped and marked as Q10 shows similarities with the blue enclosed admitted signatures stamped and marked as C1 to C28. 26. The specimen marked as T1 to T24 are not found consistent with admitted C1 to C28, hence considering admitted signatures genuine and contemporary in nature, only admitted signatures C1 to C28 are taken for examination and comparison. Grounds 27. The disputed and standard signatures are written freely and agree with each other in general writing characteristics such as line quality, movement, point load skill, alignment, spacing, slant, speed, pen presentation, relative size, proportion of letter etc; with natural variation and do not show sign of imitation. Standards are also show consistency on interse examination. 28. The disputed and standard signatures also agree with each other in individual writing characteristics. Some of significant points of similarities are mentioned below: (a) Manner of execution of Hindi letter ‘u’, its simplified initial eyelet, horizontal body movement, middle depression in body movement, joining movement of body with staff, relative position of joining, fine, sharp movement and finish of staff. (b) Nature of start with pen pause, vertical staff movement, simplified body hump movement of bridge stroke, continuation of finish as upward movement of ‘matra’, ‘Ra’, single operation movement in Hindi letter ‘e’ (C27) (c) Highly simplified execution of body curves of Hindi letter ‘y’ flying and fine feather connecting stroke of body and staff (C9, C12, C18, C20). (b) Nature of start with pen pause, vertical staff movement, simplified body hump movement of bridge stroke, continuation of finish as upward movement of ‘matra’, ‘Ra’, single operation movement in Hindi letter ‘e’ (C27) (c) Highly simplified execution of body curves of Hindi letter ‘y’ flying and fine feather connecting stroke of body and staff (C9, C12, C18, C20). (d) Like manner of execution of vowel sign ‘f’, retracted movement of staff, conical top body, relative size and position of body (C21). (e) Manner of execution of final simplified letter, fine movement of start body in connection with finish of top bar (C2), body curve movements with medial sharpness, tapered finish of terminal stroke (C3), fine feather connecting stroke between finish and under scoring stroke (C7). 29. The latest factual report produced by the Addl. Advocate General dated 11th of August 2016, sent by the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh is also significant for thrashing out the matter in its entirety. 29. The latest factual report produced by the Addl. Advocate General dated 11th of August 2016, sent by the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh is also significant for thrashing out the matter in its entirety. The relevant excerpt of the factual report dated 11th of August 2016 reads as under: “nkSjkus vuqla/kku nksuksa i{kksa ds tkudkjksa ls tkudkjh yh xbZ rks rRdkfyu efgyk Fkkuk LVkQ ls ekyqekr fd;k rks nksuksa i{kksa esa eqdnek ua0 60@13 iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk guqekux< esa jkthukek Kkr gksus ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ,oa U;kf;d eft0 egksn; guqekux< ls eqdnek gktk fookfnr izkFkZuk i= ¼jkthukek½ o LiS’kheSu uewuk gLrk{kj Jhefr /kuorh nsoh o Jh oklqnso ds ysus ds fy;s izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k o vuqla/kku gsrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls nLrkost izkIr fd;s o efgyk Fkkuk guqekux< ls rRdkfyu Fkkukf/kdkjh Jhefr fueZyk fo’uksbZ ds dk;Zdky esa fd;s x;s gLrk{kj ;qDr fookn jfgr nLrkost izkIr fd;s o efgyk Fkkuk dk eq[; vkj{kh Jh nfj;k flg ok dkfu0 Jh mEesnkjke ls vuqla/kku dj C;ku fy[ks x;sA eqdnek gktk esa eqdnek ua0 60@13 esa nkSjkus vuqla/kku rRdkfyu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk guqekux< ds le{k Jhefr /kuaorh o Jh oklqnso }kjk fooknjfgr izkFkZuk i= QksVks dkWih fnukad 17-4-13 ij Jhefr /kuaorh o Jh oklqnso ds gLrk{kjksa dk feyku gsrq vxzs”k.k i= tkjh djok;k tkdj ,Q,l,y ls feyku djok;k x;k rks fooknjfgr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 17-4-13 ij gq;s gLrk{kj Jhefr /kuaorh nsoh o Jh oklqnso ds gh gksus ik;s x;s gSA blls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd Jhefr /kuorhnsoh o Jh oklqnso }kjk eq0ua0 60@13 esa nkSjkus vuqla/kku nksuksa i{kksa esa jkthukek gksus ij fnukad 17-4-13 dks rRdkfyu Fkkukf/kdkjh dks izkFkZuk i= ¼jkthukek½ is’k fd;k x;k FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa ml ewy i= ds xqe gksus @xk;c gksus ds dkj.k mldh udy djds nqljk jkthukek i= i=koyh ij yxk;k gSA tks fd viuh ykijokgh dks fNikus ds vk’; ls fd;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gS D;ksafd tc ifjokfn;k us jkthukek i= is’k fd;k gS rks mldh udy cuk dj yxkus ls ifjokfn;k dks dksbZ ykHk ;k gkfu gksuh ugha ik;h xbZ gS ok vU; fdlh dks dksbZ ykHk gksuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA udy cukus okys dk vk’; Loa; dh ykijokgh fNikus dk gSA dksbZ vU; vijkf/kd vk’; izrhr ugha gks jgk gSA udy cukus okys lEHkkfor Jhefr fueZyk jkuh m0fu0 ds Lis’khesu gLrk{kj fy;s x;s gSA rRi’pkr Jh ukjk;.k flag iq0fu0 dk LFkkukUrj.k gks tkus ij eqdnek gktk dk vkxkeh vuqla/kku eu~ Fkkukf/kdkjh j.kohj flag iq0fu0 }kjk ‘kq# fd;k x;kA nkSjkus vuqla/kku eu iq0fu0 us Jhefr /kuaorh nsoh o Jh oklqnso dks rQrh’k gSrw lfQuk tkjh fd;k x;k rks gj nksuksa us vuqla/kku ij dFku ugha fd;s tkus ij Jh j?kqohj dkfu0 ds }kjk fd xbZ fy[kkoV ds i= dk;kZy; ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd guqekux< ls izkIr fd;s fookn jfgr izkFkZuk i= QksVks dkWih o fookfnr izkFkZuk i= ij gqbZ fy[kkoV o gLrk{kjksa dk feyku djokus gsrq vxzs”k.k i= tkjh djok;k tkdj tek ,Q,l,y tks/kiqj tfj;s jlhn uEcj 172 fnukad 02-05-2016 }kjk djok;k x;k fnukad 03-05-2016 dks Jhefr /kuaorh nsoh o Jh oklqnso vuqla/kku gsrq lger gksus ij gj nksuksa ds c;ku /kkjk 161 lhvkjihlh esa ys[kc) fd;s tkdj ‘kkehy fe’ky fd;s x;sA eqdnek gktk esa ,Q,l,y fjiksVZ izkIr gksus ij ‘kkehy i=koyh dh xbZA eqdnek gktk esa vuqla/kku ls ;g ik;k fd Jhefr /kuaorhnsoh o Jh oklqnso us vuqla/kku ij dFku fd;k fd eq0ua0 60@13 gekj78k jkthukek ugha gqvk ok ukgh geus jkthukek efgyk Fkkuk ij is’k fd;k FkkA tcfd fookn jfgr izkFkZuk i= QksVks izfr ¼jkthukek½ fnukad 17-04-13 ij gq;s gLrk{kjksa dk feyku ,Q,l,y ls djok;k tkus ij gj nksuksa ds gLrk{kj fd;s gksus ik;s x;s gS bl dkj.k gj nksuksa ds dFku fujk/kkj gksus ik;s x;s gS pqafd fooknjfgr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 17-04-13 dks Jhefr /kuorh nsoh }kjk is’k djuk ik;k x;k gSA eqdnek gktk esa fooknxzLr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 17-04-13 dks eqdnek uEcj 60@13 esa eqyfte jks’kuyky dk pkyku is’k djrs le; rRdkfyu Fkkukf/kdkjh Jhefr fueZyk jkuh m0fu0 o rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh dk jhMj j?kqohj dkfu0 }kjk fookn jfgr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 17-04-13 xqe gksus ;k xk;c gks tkus ds dkj.k mldh gw c gw udy djds fookn xzLr izkFkZuk i= rS;kj dj viuh ykijokgh dks Nqikus ds vk’; ls o nksuksa i{kksa dk jkthukek gks tkus ds fo’okl ds dkj.k rS;kj dj is’k U;k;ky; fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA bl fooknxzLr izkFkZuk i= dks Jhefr fueZyk jkuh m0fu0 o j?kqohj dkfu0 us dksbZ ykHk ysus ds vk’; ls rS;kj djuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA bl rjg fookn xzLr izkFkZuk i= ¼jkthukek½ ls xSj lk;y;ku dks dksbZ ykHk gksuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA eqdnek gktk esa ,Q,l,y fjiksVZ esa fooknxzLr izkFkZuk i= ij fookfnr fy[kkoV ¼bUMkslesUV½ dh fy[kkoV Jh j?kqohj dkfu0 dh fy[kkoV ls esy [kkuk ikbZ xbZ gS ok fookfnr izkFkZuk i= ij Fkkukf/kdkjh gLrk{kj Jhefr fueZyk jkuh ds gLrk{kjksa ls esy [kkuk ik;k x;k gSA eqdnek uEcj 60@13 tSj rtoht vnkyr gSA vuqla/kku ls Jhefr fueZyk jkuh m0fu0 o j?kqohj dkfu0 }kjk fooknxzLr izkFkZuk i= dks viuh ykijokgh dks Nqikus ds vk’; ls rS;kj dj is’k vnkyr djuk ik;k x;k gS ekeyk /kkjk 193 Hkk0n0l0 dk odq esa vkuk ik;k x;k gSA eqdnek gktk esa Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; guqekux< }kjk ufrtk vkns’k gkfly fd;s tkdj ufrtk is’k U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k tkosxkA” 30. Therefore, taking into account serious discrepancies in both the FSL reports inasmuch as in the first FSL report (dated 11th of June 2014) signatures of the petitioner and her husband are dissimilar to the specimen signatures and in the second FSL report (19th of June 2015) signatures of the petitioner and her father are found to be similar, there remains no shadow of doubt that on copy of the alleged compromise, which was arrived at between the petitioner and the accused persons, signatures are manipulated by respondent No.2 and Constable Raghuveer Singh. Being Investigating Officer, such a conduct of respondent No.2 cannot be countenanced so also the conduct of Constable Raghuveer Singh and as such investigation against both of them for commission of offence is warranted. In view of second FSL report, wherein the authorized hand-writing expert has given a report contrary to the earlier report dated 11th of June 2014, prima facie, it is not possible to castigate respondents No.2 & 10 as well as Constable Raghuveer Singh for forgery of valuable security and forgery for the purpose cheating etc. in preparation of document, which is compromise, allegedly signed by petitioner and her father. As such, prima facie indictment of second respondent and Constable Raghuveer Singh for the alleged manipulation and maneuvering appears to be under serious cloud. However, by misplacing copy of compromise duly signed by petitioner and her father and preparing a copy of compromise for filing it with the final report submitted before the learned trial Court is per se not pardonable conduct. In fact, respondent No.2 and Constable Raghuveer Singh while doing so have made an affirmative attempt to camouflage their serious omissions and commissions and therefore both of them cannot be bailed out for gross dereliction from their duties. This sort of situation also clears decks so as to proceed with investigation in FIR No.630 of 2014 registered against unknown persons requires probe with utmost promptitude for reaching at some logical conclusion. It is also noteworthy that second respondent being in helm of affairs as Investigating Officer in a case, wherein accused persons are charged for committing a social crime, such lapses are not pardonable and at times this sort of conduct of an investigating officer may shake or erode the confidence of the public at large in the functioning of police sleuths. The above quoted factual report also speak volumes about the fact that conduct of second respondent and Constable Raghuveer Singh is under cloud and therefore the apprehension of the petitioner about impartiality of these two individuals in the matter of investigation cannot be ruled out in totality. The over-enthusiasm shown by both of them in order to prepare a copy of compromise deed by manipulating signatures of petitioner and her father is a conduct unbecoming of a public servant. 31. The upshot of the foregoing discussions is that the instant criminal misc. petition is partly allowed, and – (i) the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of Criminal Misc. Case No.60/2013 and decide the same as expeditiously as possible; (ii) considering serious discrepancies in two FSL reports dated 11.06.2014 and 19.06.2015 having altogether different result of examinations, petitioner is set at liberty to apply before learned trial Court for further investigation in the matter; (iii) the respondent State is directed to proceed with investigation against respondent No.2 and Constable Raghuveer Singh in connection with FIR No.630 of 2014 registered at the concerned Police Station of Hanumangarh with promptitude for submitting manipulated document (compromise) before the Court for facilitating submission of final report in the matter before a competent Court. (iv) Criminal Misc. Petition against respondents No.3 to 8 is dismissed with a word of caution for the petitioner not to pollute august judicial forum in future to ridicule judiciary at her whims and fancies; (v) State Government is also directed to ensure entrustment of investigation in relation to FIRs wherein accused persons are castigated for social evils like offence under Section 354, 363A, 364A, 366A, 366B, 370, 376, 498A and 509 IPC to expert and experienced police officers with impeccable integrity and high reputation, for reinforcement of public faith in the functioning of police department.