Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1368 (RAJ)

Ankit Garg v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. - Through these petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.61/2015 registered at the (2 of 6) Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B IPC. 2. The above FIR is one in the long list of cases registered in pursuance of a matrimonial rift which arose between the petitioner Ankit Garg and his wife Ms. Khushbu (daughter of the respondent No.2 complainant). The respondent No.2 Radheyshyam's (complainant) daughter Ms. Khushbu was married to Ankit Garg on 20.06.2010. The matrimonial relationship between spouses fell out and numerous cases came to be instituted inter-se between them. The petitioner Ankit Garg filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Hanumangarh for dissolution of marriage whilst Smt. Khushbu filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both the matters were decided simultaneously. During the inquiry of both these matters, the petitioner Ankit Garg submitted a rent deed claiming that as Smt. Khushbu was not desirous of living in the joint family, Ankit Garg was compelled to take a separate house on rent so that the matrimonial relations could be continued. The house was allegedly taken on rent on 01.07.2011 whereas, the stamp on which the written rent deed was executed, was issued on 04.03.2012. 3. Ramavtar Kediya (petitioner No.1 in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2951/2015) is the landlord, Shyam Sunder is a witness in the rent deed whereas Lalit Garg happens to be the father of Ankit Garg. The FIR in question came to be lodged by respondent No.2 Radhey Shyam with an allegation that the above mentioned rent deed was forged and fabricated and was created for defeating the lawful claim made by Smt. Khushbu in the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in order to create fictitious evidence in support of the divorce application filed by Shri Ankit Garg. The Family Court, considered the entirety of facts and evidence led before it and decreed the application filed by Smt. Khushbu under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. While deciding the matter, the learned Family Court held that Ankit Garg failed to prove that he had taken one room set house of Ramavtar Kediya on rent. The Family Court, considered the entirety of facts and evidence led before it and decreed the application filed by Smt. Khushbu under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. While deciding the matter, the learned Family Court held that Ankit Garg failed to prove that he had taken one room set house of Ramavtar Kediya on rent. Manifestly thus, Ankit Garg did not get any wrongful gain by the rent deed referred to supra in relation whereto, the present FIR has been lodged. The rent agreement, which was exhibited in the Family Court's proceedings, simply reads that the premises were rented out effective from 01.07.2011. The complainant alleged that the rent deed was prepared ante-date on a stamp purchased on 04.03.2012. However, the I.O. has, during the course of investigation, collected the stamp vendor's register and other material concluding that the stamp was as a matter of fact, purchased by Ankit Garg on 04.03.2011 for procuring a bank loan, however, later on, he used the same to execute the rent deed. The relevant findings of the I.O's in the factual report are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:- 4. Shri Bora, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that ex-facie, the allegation sets out in the FIR regarding the rent deed being fabricated forged is baseless. The rent deed cannot be covered within the definition of a false document as defined in Section 464 IPC. He further submitted that if at all the complainant claimed that Ankit Garg tried to lead false evidence in the Family Court on the strength of disputed rent deed then, only the procedure to seek prosecution in relation to such document would be of filing a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and registration of FIR at the complainant's instance is impermissible in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. He thus implored the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned FIR which as per Shri Bora amounts to a gross abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, Shri Vineet Jain, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. 6. 5. Per contra, Shri Vineet Jain, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, with reference to the I.O.'s factual report, candidly conceded that the I.O. has found that the date of issuance mentioned on the stamp was erroneously written as 04.03.2012 whereas the stamp was actually purchased on 04.03.2011. Corresponding entries of the stamp vendor's register were collected by the I.O. which corroborate this conclusion. Manifestly thus, the rent deed cannot be termed to be a forged or ante-dated document by any stretch of imagination. It cannot also be branded as a valuable security so far as the complainant is concerned because none of the complainant's rights were adversely effected or curtailed by the so-called fraudulent procurement of the rent deed by Shri Ankit Garg. If at all, the complainant was desirous of prosecuting the accused for leading false evidence before the Family Court, then the only remedy available to him would have been to take recourse of the procedure provided in Section 340 Cr.P.C. because the alleged attempt of leading false evidence was in a court proceedings and only the court could have directed filing of complaint in relation thereto. Ex-facie, the Family court did not form any opinion in the judgment dated 14.08.2014 that the document was forged or that it amounted to an attempt to lead false evidence. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing proceedings of the impugned FIR to be continued against the petitioners herein would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law. 8. Resultantly, these misc. petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No. 61/2015 registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are hereby quashed. 9. A copy of this order be placed in each file.