Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 255 (RAJ)

Rajan Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-10

FARJAND ALI

body2025
Order : 1. By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition, challenge is made to the very lodging of the FIR No.479/2022 at the Police Station, Udaimandir, District Jodhpur City East for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as mentioned in the FIR are that the complainant decided to sell a piece of land to one Rampratap for Rs.4,21,000 per bigha. An initial transaction took place, in which Rs.35,00,000 was transferred on 06.06.2012. The remaining payments of Rs.35,00,000 and Rs.50,00,000 were agreed to be transferred on 05.08.2012 and 05.09.2012, respectively. The final payment of Rs.1,00,00,000 was to be made after obtaining the lease for the said land. A receipt detailing these conditions was provided to the complainant and Shri Chotu Singh, with the signatures of witnesses Rampratap and Rajan duly attested. As per the terms mentioned in the receipt dated 06.06.2012, Rampratap was supposed to pay Rs.35,00,000 on 05.08.2012. However, he made this payment on 16.10.2012 instead. At the time of payment, Rampratap himself recorded an entry regarding the transaction, after which the complainant and Shri Chotu Singh signed it and dated it as 16.10.2012, with Rajan serving as a witness. It is further alleged that when this entry was made, some blank space was left between the entry and the complainant's signature. The accused, Rampratap and Rajan, allegedly took advantage of this space and forged additional entries of Rs.30,00,000 on 10.09.2012 and Rs.20,00,000 on 16.10.2012. Additionally, they altered the original entry of Rs.35,00,000 by inserting the date 05.08.2012 before it. This forgery was committed by falsely filling in amounts and dates. In a normal course of transactions, when a person receives money, they sign separately for each payment. However, the accused, Rampratap, allegedly misused the blank space between the entry and the signature dated 16.10.2012 and thus, committed forgery and fraud. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present FIR is a clear misuse of criminal law, as the dispute arises from a land sale agreement, which is purely civil in nature. It is further argued that the petitioner had no involvement in the transaction beyond signing as a witness and was neither part of any monetary exchange nor responsible for alleged forgery. It is further argued that the petitioner had no involvement in the transaction beyond signing as a witness and was neither part of any monetary exchange nor responsible for alleged forgery. The FIR lacks prima facie evidence against him, and even the complainant admitted in court that the petitioner had merely signed as a witness, further weakening the case. Further, it was submitted that the charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are contradictory, making the FIR legally untenable. Additionally, there is no evidence to support allegations of forgery or conspiracy, as the alleged fraudulent entries were solely attributed to the co-accused. The FIR appears to be driven by malice, intended to harass the petitioner rather than seek genuine legal redress. Moreover, the frivolous proceedings violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. He provided the established Supreme Court precedents, dictate that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes, and in the absence of substantial evidence, such FIRs should be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process. 4. The public prosecutor and counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the FIR impugned and other material made available to this Court. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and minutely going through the contents of the FIR and the other material made available to this Court, it is revealing that the FIR primarily alleges that only Rampratap was involved in the sale of land. A transaction of Rs. 35 lakhs took place on 06.06.2012, for which a receipt was duly prepared. However, in the gap between the entry and the signature, two additional entries were made. Notably, the petitioner was only the witness to the receipt dated 06.06.2012. Since the monetary consideration was received on the same date as mentioned in the receipt, it is evident that the document was executed either on 06.06.2012 or thereafter but before 05.08.2012 so the fact as stated in the FIR, is therefore correct. The complainant himself stated that the witness petitioner was present at the time of the transaction involving Rs.35 lakhs on 06.06.2012. However, there is no assertion that he was present when the disputed entries were made. The complainant himself stated that the witness petitioner was present at the time of the transaction involving Rs.35 lakhs on 06.06.2012. However, there is no assertion that he was present when the disputed entries were made. Upon examining the receipt, it appears that the signatures of the co-accused, Rampratap and Rajan, are placed parallel to the space where the witnesses may have signed. This raises the possibility that the document holder inserted additional content at a later stage and in such a scenario, the witness cannot be held liable, as it is not alleged that he was present, agreed to, or in connivance with the principal accused at the time of the insertion of the forged entries. Furthermore, the authenticity of the witness petitioner’s signature on the agreement-cum-receipt is not in question in this case and even the complainant does not dispute his signature on the document but merely asserts that the amount of Rs.35 lakhs was paid in his presence and that he signed as a witness. However, it is important to reiterate that nowhere in the case diary, it is mentioned that the petitioner was present at a later stage when any additional entries were made. It is neither ascertainable nor discernible to this Court as to the exact time and place at which the alleged act of forgery took place because the document was never in the petitioner’s possession. This Court also observed that if the exact circumstances of the alleged insertion remain unknown to everyone involved, how can the petitioner be expected to have knowledge of it. Moreover, the petitioner’s testimony regarding the transaction is genuine, as the complainant himself has corroborated the same and his affidavit clearly states that, in his presence, only one transaction took place which took place on 06.06.2012 and the other two disputed entries were not made in front of him. 7. Furthermore, counsel for the complainant, Shri Vinod Sharma and Priyanka Borana, have unequivocally admitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner to the effect that subsequent to the execution of first entry, the petitioner was also present when the two disputed entries were made. Since, he was neither present when the subsequent entries were made nor is there any material to infer that he was also having knowledge or was agreeable for the subsequent fake entries, therefore, the question of prosecuting him does not arise. Since, he was neither present when the subsequent entries were made nor is there any material to infer that he was also having knowledge or was agreeable for the subsequent fake entries, therefore, the question of prosecuting him does not arise. Both the complainant and the petitioner agree that the transaction on 06.06.2012 occurred, and petitioner was a witness to it. However, for the two disputed entries, the responsibility, if any, would lie solely with the beneficiary of the instrument. There are no direct allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, as he was merely a witness to the document in question. The complainant’s primary case supports this, as it acknowledges that such a deed was executed in front of the petitioner, which is not disputed by him. However, regarding the contested entries, he has categorically stated that they were not made in his presence. Additionally, neither the FIR nor any subsequent statements even whisper that the petitioner was present when the alleged counterfeit entries were made. Further, it is evident from both sides that the petitioner had no involvement in these disputed entries instead he would serve as a prosecution witness, given his affidavit confirming that these entries were not made in his presence. Accordingly, there exists no basis for prosecuting him, and the proceedings against him deserves to be quashed. 8. In view of the above discussion, the criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR mentioned above, and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof qua the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. The stay petition also stands disposed of.