MOTA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners Mote Ram and Pema Ram have challenged the order dated 20.4.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nokha whereby he took cognizance against them for offence under Section 418, 467 and 120-B Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The second respondent Smt. Manohari Devi is the daughter of the second petitioner Pema Ram. Mst. Manohari Devi lodged a complaint in the father Pema Ram. She got married with one Mangi Lal about 25 years back. Her father is having ancestral property and 27 Bighas of agricultural land. It is alleged that her cousin Mota Ram has been adopted by his father by manipulating the adoption deed. It is stated that no adoption ceremony had taken place to her knowledge. On the said complaint, the learned Magistrate by order dated 20.4.2002. has taken cognizance against the petitioners Mota Ram and Pema Ram for offence under Section 418, 467 and 120-B Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I am surprised how a document can said to be forged by the author himself. Pema Ram is none-else but the father of the complainant. If there existed a document whereby Pema Ram has adopted Mota Ram as his son it cannot said to be a forged by any stretch of imagination. The complainant Smt. Manohari Devi appears to be an illiterate lady. Some persons behind her have got the false and fabricated complaint lodged to grab the property of Pema Ram. Be that as it may, the question of validity of adoption can be better appreciated in a civil proceedings. The continuance of instant proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of court. In order to prevent the abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice, it is expedient to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.