RAJ RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raj Rani has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Calendar submitted by police of Police Station City Panipat under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code against her, the same being an abuse of the process of the court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that one H.K.L. Mohan brother of Ram Mohan was in possession of certain property as an owner. He was alleged to have executed a will dated 13.4.1987 in favour of Ram Mohan and after the death of Shri H.K.L. Mohan, Ram Mohan became the owner of the property which was bequeathed to him by his brother. One Sunil Kumar entered into an agreement to sell the property owned by Shri H. K. L. Mohan to Raj Rani and executed an agreement on 15.12.1987 for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/ -. He received Rs. 1,00,000/ - as earnest money from Raj Rani. Raj Rani filed a complaint under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 477 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against Ram Mohan and seven other persons alleging that in fact Shri H. K. L. Mohan had not executed any will in favour of Ram Mohan and the alleged will was a forged document. It did not contain signatures of H. K. L. Mohan. The complaint was filed in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat who sent the same to Station House Officer, Police Station Panipat for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order copy of which is Annexure P 5. After investigation of the case, it was found that the complaint filed by Raj Rani was false and signatures on the will tallied with the proved signatures of H.K.L Mohan and were to forged. Calendar Annexure P7 was thus presented against Raj Rani under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE petitioner averred that Ram Mohan had filed a suit against her alleging that he was owner in possession of the property on the basis of the will, which was previously owned by his brother H. K. L. Mohan. She too had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Ram Mohan and one Sunil Kumar adopted son of H. K. L. Mohan from alienating the property in question. The question whether the alleged will was a genuine document or not, is to be decided by the civil court and the calendar submitted against her was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It was presented just to harass her.