Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 503 (RAJ)

Jyotsana v. State of Rajasthan

2018-02-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J —Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 2. By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Smt.Jyotsana has approached this Court for assailing the F.I.R. No.176/2012 registered at the P.S. Udaimandir, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 3. The F.I.R. came to be lodged by Sanjay Bhatt, the petitioner's brother alleging inter-alia that the petitioner prepared a forged Will of their late father Shri Mansa Ram Bhatt and usurped the house No.G8, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur on the strength thereof. The complainant alleged that the accused petitioner connived with their mother Smt. Vijay Laxmi and prepared the forged Will which did not bear the signatures of any witness whatsoever. He further alleged that the names of three witnesses mentioned in the Will never actually signed the same and hence, the Will is forged. The petitioner challenged the said F.I.R. by filing an earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which came to be registered as Misc. Petition No.2754/2012. Learned Public Prosecutor made a statement in this Court on 4.2.2014 that the Police concluded the investigation and finding the complainant's allegations unsubstantiated a negative Final Report was filed in the court concerned. In this background, the misc. petition was dismissed as not pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner reserving her right to file a fresh one if need so arose. After submission of the negative Final Report, the Police has recommenced investigation of the matter on the application filed by the complainant whereupon, the instant fresh misc. petition came to be filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Bhansali learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Jyotsana urges that the respondent complainant was since long harassing his parents. Thus, the father Shri Mansa Ram Bhatt issued a public notice in the newspaper discontinuing in the year 1990 disowning the respondent. petition came to be filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Bhansali learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Jyotsana urges that the respondent complainant was since long harassing his parents. Thus, the father Shri Mansa Ram Bhatt issued a public notice in the newspaper discontinuing in the year 1990 disowning the respondent. That the Will in question was executed by Mr.Mansa Ram Bhatt in favour of Smt.Vijay Laxmi and it bears signatures of three advocates and thus, as per Mr.Bhansali genuineness of the Will cannot be questioned and that the entire proceedings of the impugned F.I.R. are motivated and the complainant who does not have any right in the House No. G-8, Shastri Nagar, , wants to usurp the same by adopting these tactics. He further points out that the application for temporary injunction filed by the complainant has already been rejected by the competent civil court whereas, the petitioner has been granted protection by the civil court in the cross-suit filed by her. He thus implores the Court to exercise its inherent powers and quash the impugned F.I.R. which as per Mr.Bhansali amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating 5. Officer and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urge that the petitioner forged the Will in favour of Smt. Vijay Laxmi and thereafter fraudulently, induced Smt.Vijaylaxmi the mother to bequeath the property in her own name while depriving the complainant from his lawful share in their father's property. They urged that the disputed Will has not yet been examined by the FSL and thus, this Court should not interfere in the investigation which at in the nascent stage. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. The Will in question is purported to have been executed by Mr.Mansa Ram Bhatt in favour of his wife Smt.Vijaylaxmi way-back on 2.12.1988 and bears attestion of three advocates viz. Shri Ramnath Ramdev, Shri P.S.Porwal and Shri Shyam Singh Chouhan. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Vijaylaxmi on 22.5.2012 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in such statement, she categorically stated that the plot in question i.e. G8 Shastri Nagar was jointly purchased by herself and her husband Mr.Mansa Ram Bhatt. Thereafter, they constructed house thereupon. Shri Ramnath Ramdev, Shri P.S.Porwal and Shri Shyam Singh Chouhan. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Vijaylaxmi on 22.5.2012 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in such statement, she categorically stated that the plot in question i.e. G8 Shastri Nagar was jointly purchased by herself and her husband Mr.Mansa Ram Bhatt. Thereafter, they constructed house thereupon. Her son Sanjay Bhatt was a man of immoral character and used to quarrel with her and her late husband Mr.Mansa Ram Bhatt often tried to assault them. They filed a complaint against Sanjay Bhatt at the Police Station Shastri Nagar and also issued a public notice in the newspaper regarding Sanjay turned out of the home and property. In the year 1988 Mr. Mansa Ram Bhatt executed a Will of plot in question in petitioner's favour. She claimed to be in possession of the original Will. She also stated that Mansa Ram expired on 22.4.2008 whereafter Sanjay started harassing, abusing and torturing her and Jyotsana. She also stated that her husband had constructed House no. 65 in Adeshwar Nagar and had given the same to Sanjay who was having a greed for the house No. G-8 as well and had filed the false case against them. The I.O. also recorded the statement of Mr. Shyam Singh Chouhan, Advocate who is one of the witnesses to the Will and he affirmed that he signed and attested the Will in question executed by late Shri Mansa Ram Bhatt bequeathing the House No. G-8 in favour of his wife Smt. Vijay Laxmi. It has also been revealed in investigation that Smt. Vijay Laxmi bequeathed the house to the present petitioner and has since passed away. 8. In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that the allegations levelled by Mr. Snajay Bhatt the complainant herein that the Will was forged by the petitioner is totally false and frivolous. The I.O. has recorded statements of Smt. Vijay Laxmi the beneficiary of the Will as well as the Advocate Mr. Shyam Singh Chouhan who have verified the fact that the Will was genuinely and bonafide executed by Mr. Mansa Ram Bhatt way back in the year 1988. Manifestly, the F.I.R. lodged by Mr. Sanjay Bhatt is nothing other than means of wreaking vengeance and seeking a claim on the property on which he has no right whatsoever. Shyam Singh Chouhan who have verified the fact that the Will was genuinely and bonafide executed by Mr. Mansa Ram Bhatt way back in the year 1988. Manifestly, the F.I.R. lodged by Mr. Sanjay Bhatt is nothing other than means of wreaking vengeance and seeking a claim on the property on which he has no right whatsoever. The attending circumstances noted above clearly indicate that late Shri Mansa Ram Bhatt had consciously ousted Sanjay from staking any claim on the house in question. 9. In view of these facts, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned F.I.R. and all further proceedings sought to be undertaken in furtherance thereof are nothing short of a gross abuse of the process of law. Hence this Court is thoroughly convinced that it is a fit case for exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned F.I.R. 10. Thus, the instant misc. petition is hereby allowed. The impugned F.I.R. 176/2012 P.S. Udai Mandir, Jodhpur and all further proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are quashed.