Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1704 (RAJ)

Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-10

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.248/2015 of Police Station Loonkaransar, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report, wherein it is mentioned that the police after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR have already filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused persons in the concerned Court on 29.05.2018, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that in the impugned FIR, the petitioner is not named as accused but despite that the police without there being any evidence against the petitioner has filed charge sheet against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that from the bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it is clear that no case for cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that as per the impugned FIR, the complainant has alleged that accused persons named in the impugned FIR have illegally sold the plot in question belonging to his father on the basis of forged documents. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the person who has allegedly purchased the plot in question on the basis of the said forged documents has not filed any complaint and in such circumstances no case against any of the accused is said to have been made out in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Anr, (2009) CrLR 746. 4. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR may kindly be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this criminal misc. petition and argued that during the course of investigation, the police have found that the petitioner in connivance with two other persons namely Babu Lal and Vimal Prakash had prepared a forged power of attorney by putting the signatures of land holder Bhagwana Ram, father of respondent No.2 and on the basis of the said forged power of attorney, Babu lal sold the plot to one Hem Chand in the year 1991. 6. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that as a matter of fact, allegation against the petitioner is with regard to preparation of forged power of attorney and the police have filed charge sheet against him for that offence. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has therefore prayed that sufficient material has been collected by the police during the course of investigation and on the basis of the same, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, therefore, impugned FIR cannot be quashed and this criminal mic. petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parteis and perused the impugned FIR as well as the factual report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. It is true that the petitioner has not been named as accused in the impugned FIR, however, during the course of investigation, the police have collected material that originally the plot in question was allotted to Bhagwana Ram, father of the respondent No.2 in the year 1986. Later on, in year 1991, one power of attorney was prepared at the instance of co-accused Vimal Prakash in favour of one Babu Lal and the said power of attorney has allegedly been executed by the original allottee Bhagwana Ram. On the said power of attorney, the petitioner stood as a witness along with Vimal Prakash. The police have found that the said power of attorney contained forged signatures of Bhagwana Ram. Later on, on the basis of the said power of attorney, the plot in question was sold to one Hemchand and from whom the plot in question was purchased by one Sunita. 10. Taking into consideration the above material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is party to preparation of forged document and, therefore, it cannot be said that no case for commission of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. 11. So far as the judgment of Md. Ibrahim & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Anr., is concerned, the same is of no help to the petitioner because the allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he is party in preparation of forged power of attorney of the original allottee and not of this effect that he has sold the plot in question to someone else. 12. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for in this criminal misc. 12. In view of the above discussion, no interference is called for in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed.