PROMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.2 V.K. Agrawal and the petitioner are real brothers. It is averred in the F.I.R. that the respondent V.K. Agrawal had filed suit No. 7/91 against the petitioner in the court of Distt. Judge, Dholpur, for partition of the ancestral property. In the course of that suit when plaintiff V.K. Agrawal examined himself and was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner, a letter allegedly written by V.K. Agrawal to his father and throwing a light upon the subject matter of litigation was put to him and he was required to explain the contents of the letter. According to V.K. Agrawal, respondent No.2, the said letter was not written by him and that the same was a forged document. It is gathered from the F.I.R. that the said letter had already been produced in the Civil suit and formed the part of the record before the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur. It was in this background that V.K. Agrawal, respondent No.2, lodged the present F.I.R., bearing No. 365/96, at P/s. Kotwali, Dholpur, whereupon a case for offences Under section 420, 467, 471 Penal Code was registered against the present petitioner. This petition has been filed with the prayer that the investigation of the said case, in the background stated above, amount to abuse of the process of law and, therefore, F.I.R. No. 365/96, P/s. Kotwali, Dholpur, is required to be quashed.

(2.) Ordinarily this court does not interfere with the investigation, being conducted by the police in a case, until and unless such investigation appears to be motivated purely by malice leading to harassment of a citizen and amounts to abuse of the process of law. If the F.i.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, such F.I.R. can not be quashed particularly in its inception. The Investigating Agency has a right to be given liberty and independence in the matter of investigating crimes. But, if the result of the investigation is not likely to enable the Investigating Agency to file a report Under section 173, upon which a court can take cognisance of an offence, the investigation of the case would amount to an exercise in futility only. Such an investigation would simply amount to abuse of the process of law, which is required to be prevented by this court in exercise of its powers Under section 482 Crimial P.C. In this behalf a reference may be made to the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 (Suppl. 1) SCC 335) and Roopam Deol Bajaj Vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995 (6) SCC 194) .

(3.) In the present case the contents of the F.I.R. themselves disclose that the document, which the informant claimed to be a forged one, formed the part of the record of judicial proceedings pending before the Distt. Judge, Dholpur in Civil Suit No. 7/91 and the said court was required to examine the genuineness or otherwise of the same. While adjudicating upon the rights of the parties to the suit before it the court of the Distt. Judge was reasonably required to consider the genuineness or otherwise of the same document, It was, therefore, for the Distt. Judge to have made his satisfaction at the time of finally adjudicating the suit before him, as to whether the letter, which was put to V.K. Agrawal in his cross-examination, was a genuine document or a forged one. In case the learned Distt. Judge came to hold the opinion that any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 195 Cr.PC. appeared to have been committed in respect to the document put to V.K. Agrawal in the course of his cross-examination and it was expedient in the interest of justice to make inquiry into such offence, the learned Judge, upon application of V.K. Agrawal or otherwise could have, after holding preliminary inquiry, if any, recorded a finding to that effect, made a complaint thereof in writing and sent the same to a Magistrate 1st Class having jurisdiction.