SUNISHA ANAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is filed by one of the applicants before the High Court seeking interference to FIR No.588 dtd. 2/6/2018, registered at the Police Station, Faridabad Central. The impugned common order in two petitions declined relief holding that though the dispute primarily pertains to land and a civil suit has already been filed there are criminal elements, which cannot be ignored since the accused persons are alleged to have knowingly prepared and executed forged General Power of Attorneys (GPAs), despite being aware that a portion of the land in question have been transferred to the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) Sri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in the First FIR though the name of the appellant herein is mentioned she was no arrayed as an accused. By a supplementary FIR, the appellant has been arrayed, though there is no material seen to have been unearthed on the further investigation after the first FIR. The decision in Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.; (2024) 11 SCC 733 is relied on, wherein submission of supplementary report in the absence of new evidence was frowned upon.

(3.) Sri Abhinav Bajaj, learned Additional Attorney General for the respondent-State argues that there is no reason to quash the FIR and the appellant has been arrayed subsequently by reason of the details revealed on investigation. The first FIR was registered and in the course of the investigation, the appellant 's role was also disclosed and hence she was arrayed as an accused.