RADHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing and setting aside the order dated 30/1/2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria, district Hanumangarh (for short, the trial Court hereinafter), whereby the trial Court, on a private complaint by non-petitioner No. 2 Akshay Kumar, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and issued process, against the petitioners. The trial Court further directed amalgation of complaint case No. 97/2002 with criminal case No. 536/2002 registered on police challan papers against coaccused Vasu Deo. Bhagirath. Ram Chandra, Sunder Ram and Prem Chand arising out of the FIR No. 34/2002.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the instant revision petition are that non-petitioner No.2 Akshay Kumar lodged an FIR No. 34 dated 15/1/2002 with Police Station. Sangaria against the petitioners and coaccused who have been challaned by t he police for the aforesaid offences, inter alia, alleging therein that his grandmothers. viz. Mst. Ram Pyari and Mst. Baktawari, both widows of late (Shri) Mehar Chand died on 7/2/1990 and 17/2/2000 respectively. Accused Vasu Deo. Mst. Radha and Mst. Kiran are the son and daughters, respectively, or late Ram Pratap who was the maternal uncle of father of the complainant. It was further alleged that in order to grab the agricultural land owned and recorded in the name or his both grandmothers these accused persons. in conspiracy with Sunder Ram. Bhagirath and Ram Chandra forged a Will by making a false document of Will dishonestly and fraudulently with an intention to cause wrongful gain to accused Vasu Deo and the present petitioners Mst. Hadha and Mst. Kiran and used the forged Will as a genuine document and with fraudulent intention cheated the complainant. On this report the police registered crime report No. 34/2002 and investigated the matter. During the investigation, the original forged Will was recovered from the possession or coaccused Vasu Deo and the register in which the forged Will was recorded was recovered from the possession of coaccused Prem Chand. The specimen handwrit ings and thumb impressions of the accused persons were sent to the Finger Print Bureau, Jaipur, statement of complainant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the report/opinion of the Finger Print Bureau Jaipur was obtained. The Director, Finger Print Bureau opined that the disputed thumb impressions shown to be of Mst. Ram Pyari and Mst. I3hagwanti arc similar and identical with the specimen left thumb impression of coaccused Sunder Ram. Thus, the thumb impressions of the executant of the Will were round to be forged by the accused. It is alleged that on the basis of the copy or the Will accused Vasu Deo and the present petitioners jointly filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the court or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Sangaria Oil 10/1/2002 and alongwith the said suit a copy of the forged Will was also filed, however, the original Will was not produced before the Revenue Court alongwith the suit or subsequent thereto as is evident from the recovery / seizure memo of the original Will recovered from coaccused Vasu Deo on 5/2/2002 by the police. As no charge sheet was filed against the present petitioners inspite of there being sufficient material round on police investigation, complainant/non-petitioner No.2 Akshay Kumar filed a private complaint on 30/9/2002 against the petitioners on which the statement or the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 22/1/2002. The learned trial Court, while taking cognizance was of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and ordered issue or process against the petitioners by non-bailable warrant for the attendance of the accused petitioners and directed to amalgamate the complaint case No. 97/2002 with criminal case No. 536/2002 arising out of FIR No. 34/2002. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court has been challenged by the present petitioners by this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant. I have also carefully gone through the impugned order dated 30/1/2003, the record of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 536/ 2002 (arising out of FIR No. 34/2002) and the complaint case No. 97/2002 the FIR the statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the record of the revenue suit filed by coaccused Vasu Deo and the present petitioners before the Court of S.D.M. Sangaria, the opinion of finger print bureau the recovery memos of the original Will and the register etc. recovered from the accused persons and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.