GULSHAN ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Through this misce. petition, petitioners seek quashment of the F.I.R. No. 1/94 of P. S. Sadar, Bikaner and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 394/95 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case may be put in narrow compass. On 27-12-93 Raisa Bano lodged a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner stating that her husband Yunus Ali had purchased a plot in Soor Sagar, Bikaner on 22-7-88 by a registered sale deed and he was doing his business on the two shops constructed thereon but on 2-5-92 he expired and Yasin Ali (brother of her husband) and Gulhasan (father of her husband) forcibly took possession of the shops and they have fabricated a false document alleged to have been executed in their favour by her husband late Yunus Ali on 12-8-88. This report was sent to the S.H.O., P. S. Sadar where F.I.R. No. 1/94 was registered. During the investigation, the police on coming to know that a civil suit was already pending in respect of the shops, made a request to the Civil Court for handing over the document filed in the case. The learned District Judge directed the delivery of the document to the police which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and report from where it was reported on 31-10-94 that the disputed signatures 'Q1' to 'Q3' on agreement were not of Yunus Ali and they were forged signatures. Consequent upon the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the petitioners.

(3.) There was one development in between the period the document was delivered by the District Judge to the police and the report of the F.S.L. was received. The order of the District Judge dt. 4-3-94 directing the delivery of the document to the police was challenged in this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition No. 324/94 which was allowed by this Court on 5-4-94 without notice to the respondent. It was held that the District Judge had erred in giving the document to the police without the permission of the High Court which was required under Rule 81 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1986. This Court directed the police to deposit the document in the Court of district Judge. Consequent upon the order of this Court, the District Judge directed the police to deposit back the document within two days but the same could not be deposited as it had already been sent to the F.S.L.