RAM PRAKASH VYAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. The facts of the case are that the complainant lady who is Opp. Party No. 2, married with the applicant who was a widower and thereafter differences arose between them and then the lady filed a First Information Report making the following allegations; (i) That after the death of her earlier husband in 1992, she married the applicant as per Arya Samaj rites on 15. 1. 1992 on his repeated assurances that he will bear all the expenses of her four children, will educate them and keep them with him and on his persuasions, they embraced Hindu religion from Christianity. (ii) After a few days of marriage, the applicant took all her household goods and articles from Kanpur to Kannauj. Thereafter he got purchased a colour T. V. , Almirah, V. C. P. etc. out of the money of which her previous husband had left and took possession of all ornaments worth Rs. Eighty thousand, which she had in her possession. (iii) The applicant got her insured for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, his behavior, thereafter, changed. He did not pay school fee and therefore, one of the children, was expelled from the school and the applicant started goading her to sell off all immoveable property inherited from her previous husband as to arrange money for him, and in case she fails to comply, he will throw out her from the vehicle and he will receive about Rs. 15-20 lacs the sum of her insurance. On her refusal, he stopped to pay education expenses of the children and also refused to maintain her and started planning to kill her and, therefore, she had returned Kanpur. His sister Gayatri Devi and niece Pankaj Singh and Mukesh Singh who were staying with the applicant, also harassed her. (iv) The applicant re-married lady Sahgal at Aligarh jointly who has also left him.

(2.) DURING investigation in the case, the investigating officer discovered that the applicant has made forged signatures of the complainant lady on a power of attorney for collection of rent and for the purposes of litigation, which was attested by an Oath Commissioner. According to the investigating officer, the signatures on the power of attorney are not of the complainant.

(3.) IT is, therefore, not possible to say that the charge of forgery against the applicant cannot proceed merely because, it is not mentioned in the First Information Report.