Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 454 (JHR)

Somo Kujur v. Abhirama Jha

2016-03-10

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The private respondents though have entered appearance through their counsel, but were absent on the previous date and not present even today. 2. The gravamen of the dispute arisen in the present writ application is in relation to a marriage certificate produced by the defendant/petitioner herein but alleged to be changed during the proceedings of the trial. The Plaintiffs/In-laws of the petitioner-wife instituted a Title Suit bearing no. 39 of 2004 in the Court of Munsif, Lohardaga seeking a decree that the defendant is not a legally married wife of Late Anand Kumar Jha and Plaintiffs are entitled to receive all benefits provided by the Government on account of death of Anand Kumar Jha, who the plaintiffs alleged was killed by the M.C.C. Terrorist group. The family of the deceased is entitled to a Government job apart from other compensation. In these foundational facts, they sought the aforesaid relief from the Trial Court relating to a declaration that the Defendant/petitioner herein is not a legally married wife of the said Anand Kumar Jha. 3. The plaintiffs made an application for sending the Exhibit-A, the marriage certificate adduced by the Defendant/petitioner herein for inquiry and verification of the age of the typing as well as signature over the certificate of marriage by scientific investigation. The Defendant had during the course of hearing on the said application produced photo copy of the Ext.A and contended that the original document had been replaced (Ext.A.). The learned Trial Court on perusal of both the documents came to the opinion by the impugned order dated 5.2.2011 (Annexure-3) that signature of the priest Ram Prasad Pandey is different in both the documents. It also found that the said Ram Prasad Pandey is no more alive. So the signature of the priest may be verified by admitted signature of the said priest Ram Prasad Pandey. Learned Trial Court under such facts and circumstances directed the defendant no.1 to produce D.W.1, Dashrath Pandey, who had earlier proved the Ext.A along with a document bearing signature of the priest in the form of any certified copy of sale deed or any individual document signed by the said priest before 3.12.1997. After that the admitted signature of the priest as well as signature on Ext.A will be sent to the expert for opinion at the cost of the parties. After that the admitted signature of the priest as well as signature on Ext.A will be sent to the expert for opinion at the cost of the parties. 4. By another order at Annexure-6 dated 29.3.2012, also impugned, the learned Trial Court came to the opinion that D.W.1, Dashrath Pandey had still not complied with the order dated 5.2.2011. It therefore directed D.W.1 to himself submit whether he has any sale deed executed by his father or has any authentic document containing signature of Ram Prasad Pandey. 5. When the matter was taken for the first time by this Court on 5.10.2012, following order was recorded while directing status-quo to be maintained with regard to T.S. No. 39 of 2004. “The petitioner by way of the present petition has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the learned Munsif, Lohardaga in Title Suit No. 39 of 2004, by which the petitioner has been directed to produce defendant witness no. 1 along with document bearing signature of the priest who had issued the marriage certificate of the petitioner on any certified copy or sale deed or any individual document signed by the said priest. The learned court below has further directed that the admitted signature of the priest as well as the signature on Exhibit-A be sent to expert for opinion. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order and other papers annexed to the petition, issue urgent notice to the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 both by Registered Post with A/D as well as by ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week. Notice is made returnable by 02nd November, 2012. Put up this case on 02nd Novembers, 2012. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case by way of ad interim order, till the next returnable date i.e. 02nd November, 2012, status quo, as on today, be maintained with regard to the proceedings of Title Suit No. 39 of 2004, pending before thelearned Munsif, Lohardaga”. 6. On notice the private respondents appeared and filed their counter affidavit also. By the interim order dated 8.5.2013 learned Principal District Judge was directed to look into the matter and take appropriate steps in view of the seriousness of the allegation made, which required investigation. 6. On notice the private respondents appeared and filed their counter affidavit also. By the interim order dated 8.5.2013 learned Principal District Judge was directed to look into the matter and take appropriate steps in view of the seriousness of the allegation made, which required investigation. A report was directed to be submitted to this Court and parties were also directed to cooperate in the inquiry if any, ordered by the learned Principal District Judge. After submission of the report, again by the order dated 21.11.2013, District Judge, Civil Court, Lohardaga was directed to re-inquire the matter after giving adequate opportunity to both the parties for adducing evidences in the matter and whether the said certificate has been changed later on or not. Considering the previous report, the Court came to the conclusion that the basis for giving finding that marriage certificate dated 3.12.1997, Ext. A is correct is not reflected from the report. Thereafter the Principal District Judge, Lohardaga has submitted report dated 12.8.2014 placed at Flag-F. Both parties were allowed opportunity to adduce their evidence and make their submission by the Principal District Judge, Lohardaga in respect of the subject matter on inquiry related to Ext. A. After copiously referring to the presentation made by the rival parties and upon consideration of the documents on record, learned Principal District Judge has come to the conclusion at para 17 of the report in the following manner:- “Para 17:-In the circumstances as referred and considered above it appears to me that the defendant Somo Kujur has filed the marriage certificate which she claims to be genuine and it was exhibited also, but thereafter it was changed with the present Ext-A by the persons interested with the help of some one having control of the affairs of the record and its related activities. With these words I am submitting my report in compliance to the order of the Hon'ble Court and the letter above referred for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Court”. 7. Conspectus of the aforesaid facts disclose that after the inquiry directed by this Court, the learned Principal District Judge, Lohardaga has found that the Ext. A produced by the Defendant/ petitioner herein being the marriage certificate has thereafter been changed by the person interested with the help of some one having control of the affairs of the record and its related activities. A produced by the Defendant/ petitioner herein being the marriage certificate has thereafter been changed by the person interested with the help of some one having control of the affairs of the record and its related activities. This report indicates that interpolation in the trial court record have been made which are cognizable offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. Procedure to be followed under such circumstances is prescribed under Chapter XXVI of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, specifically Section 34. 8. Learned Trial Court is therefore required to take cognizance of the report and proceed in accordance with law in the matter. In the event of Ext. A itself having been found to be replaced from record of the Trial Court, there is no justification for the learned Trial Court now to insist upon production of D.W.1, Dashrath Pandey for comparison of signature of the said Ext.A (shown to have been replaced) with any admitted signature of the priest Ram Prasad Pandey. In such circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure 3 and Annexure 6 dated 5.2.2011 and 29.3.2012 respectively cannot be upheld in the eye of law any more. Learned Trial Court is at liberty to proceed in the matter on the basis of all other materials on record and the evidences of the parties. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated herein above. Interim order stands vacated. I.A. No. 824 of 2016 also stands disposed of.