DALJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 233/2012 registered at P.S. Sangaria for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the first informant in this case who has subsequently been arrayed as accused. She filed a First Information Report No. 233/2012 at P.S. Sangaria through a complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegation levelled in the first information report was that the complainant is a resident of village Lambi Dhab. Her parental house is at Village Haripura. She alleged that the accused no. 1 and 2 Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh are her uncle's sons (cousin brothers). She further alleged that her uncle Gurdayal Singh i.e. the father of Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh and her father owned some agricultural land in Chak No. 3 D.N.G and Chak 4 H.R.P. The complainant further alleged that after the expiry of her uncle, the complainant's aunt Sukhmandar Kaur, sons Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh, and uncle's daughters Paramjeet Kaur, Gurmel Kaur, Shanti and Samar Kaur all received a share of her late uncle's land in succession. Gurmel Kaur was residing with her family at Philippines since 1995. The complainant further alleged that she is an illiterate lady and that the accused respondent Baltej and Jogendra Singh, her cousin brothers approached the petitioner at her village Lambi Dhab along with Sukhmandar Kaur, Paramjeet Kaur, Shanti, Samar Kaur, respondent no. 3 Roop Singh and one Mukhtiyar Singh. The accused Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh informed the complainant that their mother Sukhmandar Kaur, sisters Paramjeet Kaur, Shanti and Samar Kaur were relinquishing their share of property in favour of accused no. 1 and 2, and therefore, the complainant should accompany them as a witness. The complainant was having implicit faith in her cousin brothers, and therefore, believing their words she went to Sangaria with them. There the accused got executed a relinquishment deed in their favour on 12.10.1998 and the complainant was made to sign the same as a witness. Thereafter the complainant came back to her village. A few days later she went to her father's village Haripura. There she came to know that the accused persons conspired together and posing the petitioner to be Gurmel Kaur (the lady who was living in Philippines) and got the share inherited by Gurmel Kaur in Gurdayal Singh's agricultural land relinquished by executing a fraudulent relinquishment deed. The complainant met the accused Baltej and Jogendra Singh and implored them about the fraud committed by them on which she was provided a copy of the relinquishment deed was assured that she had just been made a witness in the relinquishment deed. The complainant met her advocate with the relinquishment deed and was informed that she has been made to stand as Gurmel Kaur when the relinquishment deed was executed. The complainant was taken aback by this revelation and again confronted the accused no. 1 and 2 with this fact. The accused no. 1 and 2 became enraged and threatened her with dire consequences. Ultimately the complainant alleged that the accused no. 1 and 2 were knowing that Gurmel Kaur was living at Philippines since the year 1995 and despite that and in order to cheat and in the furtherance of their conspiracy they fraudulently induced her to impersonate Gurmel Kaur and she was made to sign the relinquishment deed in place of Gurmel Kaur for gaining undue advantage. The complainant finally alleged in her F.I.R. that the relinquishment deed dated 12.10.1998 was forged.

(3.) The Police registered F.I.R. No. 233/2012 and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the police collected the evidence to the effect that Gurmel Kaur the lady whom the petitioner was made to impersonate had no objection about the relinquishment of her share in the property in favour of her brothers. However, it was found that the petitioner had impersonated Gurmel Kaur in the fraudulent and forged relinquishment deed and thus she along with the co-accused Baltej Singh and Jogendra Singh was equally responsible for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. Thus, petitioner, who was the first informant was herself made an accused in the case. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings of F.I.R. to her extent.