Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1854 (ALL)

Nazia @ Dr Nazia Majid v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-08-08

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The dispute between wife (Applicant-1) and husband (Opposite Party No. 2) has affected welfare of their child. Complainant, i.e., husband has filed a complaint that his wife has not only changed the name of their child (girl) in school records but also tempered with her date of birth and has not disclosed name of Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., father of child in school records. 3. Trial Court after taking note of complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has summoned Applicant-1, i.e., wife of Opposite Party No. 2 alongwith three other persons to face trial for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 IPC. Relevant part of impugned order dated 21.11.2023 is reproduced hereinafter: 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that since there was a dispute between husband and wife, name of child was changed in the documents firstly as “Maisha Faizan” and thereafter as “Aisha Naaz” though she was earlier known as “Aisha Faizan” and her Aadhar Card and Passport were also issued in the name of “Aisha Faizan”. Learned counsel further submits that aforesaid act would not constitute above referred offences. There is absolutely no evidence or statement that other co-accused have hatched a conspiracy or acted in furtherance of their common intention and learned counsel placed certain documents in support of his submissions. 5. Aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 that name of his daughter was changed without his consent. Documents placed at the time of admission in school were forged and correct documents, i.e., Aadhar Card and Passport were not placed. Name of Opposite Party No. 2 was also not disclosed in school only with an intention that he may not have any contact with his child and even he was not allowed to enter into school to place correct documents. 6. In order to appreciate rival submissions, I have carefully perused the statement of Opposite Party No. 2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter: 7. 6. In order to appreciate rival submissions, I have carefully perused the statement of Opposite Party No. 2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter: 7. Aforesaid statement is absolutely silent that Applicants-2, 3 and 4 have committed any offence of criminal conspiracy or they have acted in furtherance of their common intention and since they have been summoned only with the aid of Section 120B/34 IPC, therefore, summoning order is bad in law qua to Applicants2, 3 and 4. 8. Now the Court proceed to consider, whether offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC are made out against Applicant-1 or not. These Sections are reproduced hereinafter: “467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.—Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.” 9. Section 471 IPC describes a crime if a forged document is used as a genuine. However, in entire documents filed by Opposite Party No. 2 before Trial Court, there is no such document which was forged and later on was used as genuine. Section 471 IPC describes a crime if a forged document is used as a genuine. However, in entire documents filed by Opposite Party No. 2 before Trial Court, there is no such document which was forged and later on was used as genuine. The documents filed before school are not available on record, therefore, no offence is made out under Section 471 IPC. 10. Section 467 IPC describes a crime if a document is forged and as referred above, there is no document on record which was forged. It is not on record, whether Aadhar Card or Passport were forged or not. Even particulars of Aadhar Card can be changed since a procedure has been prescribed under Aadhar Act. 11. So far as Section 468 IPC is concerned, it relates to forgery for the purpose of cheating and as referred above since no forgery has been pointed out on basis of any document, since even prima facie, no offences (referred above) are made out under Section 468 IPC also. 12. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient material to proceed, therefore, no offence is made out against Applicant-1 also. 13. In the result, application is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 21.11.2023 and non-bailable warrant dated 26.02.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 201/2023 (Mohd. Faizan vs. Nazia Majid and others), under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 IPC, Police Station Sikandrra, District Agra, are hereby quashed. 14. However, this order will not come in the way, if Opposite Party No. 2 places record before school authorities to include his name as father of child, as till date no divorce has been taken place. Otherwise also, name of father will remain in record till it has been disowned in a legal way. It is also observed that in case Opposite Party No. 2 approaches the school to meet with Principal, for this purpose he will be allowed and school records may be corrected and for that Applicant-1 will also cooperate since it would be beneficial for welfare of child. 15. A copy of this order be sent to Principal, Kinder Academy, M-49A, Ground Floor, Near Mother Dairy, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. 16. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.