Harsukh Ram & Ors vs State & Anr on 24 November, 2008

                                        1

S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.413/2007
HARSUKH RAM & OTHERS V. STATE & ANOTHER.

DATE OF ORDER                     :::                         24/11/2008

                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA



Mr. Mahesh Bora, for Petitioner (s).
Mr. O.P.Rathi, PP, for the State.
Mr. M.L.Bishnoi, for Respondent.


      Petitioners request quashing of FIR No.51/07 Police Station,
Jaisalmer registered for the offences under Selctions420, 467, 468, 471
and 120B, IPC.
      According to FIR, R 2 submitted a complaint on 21.2.07 before the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokran alleging that (1)
Annpurna Mahila Sahakari Samiti, Khetolai is opened in October, 05 in the
name of Chairman Smt. Sushila. (2) Above society is run by P and his son
and entire record is also in their possession. (3) Mid-day mill work of Gram
Panchayat is also with this Society. (4) At the time of creation of society,
in the filled forms for registration signatures of        (a) complainant's
brother's wife Smt. Sharda and (b) signatures of Smt. Rameshwari are
forged one -     not signed by these persons,      but forgely created are
signatures thumb impressions by P. Also alleged in the FIR is some other
irregularities in registration and obtaining wrongful gain.
      Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that (1) the complainant
R 2 is in inimical terms with P. for long. (2) P 1 and his son P 3 had
nothing to do with the Samiti and P 2 wife of brother of P 1 is Chairperson
and looks after society. (3) No one in the name of Smt. Sharda w/o.
Poonam Chand and Smt. Rameshwari w/o. Bhanwarlal is member of
society (whose signatures are alleged to be forged) - name of
complainant's brother is not Punaram but Ramprakash. (4) Mid-day mill
work given to petitioner by Gram Panchayat as Samiti selected for the
purpose. (5) On complainant's application, District Collector has stopped
                                       2

the working of committee w.e.f. 1.3.07 that no irregularity committed. On
behalf of the petitioners argued that no case under Section 420, IPC, or
any other is made out and FIRs purely with ulterior motive to adversely
affect employment of the petitioner who is Government servant.         Also
argued that complainant has nothing to do with the society - no locus
standi for P 2 to initiate any such action - and FIR only to damage harm
and defame petitioner because P 1 filed a complaint under Section 500,
IPC, against many persons.
       Learned Public Prosecutor, countering above arguments, submitted
that criminal complaint and registered FIR is for cognizable offence so
locus standi is not relevant and allegations as above, are for forgery,
preparation of false documents etc.
       Considered arguments and perused FIR. Inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to be exercised very cautiously-not to be probed
are questions of facts. In the matters of quashing of FIR, the contents and
allegations of FIR normally and broadly are to be taken into consideration
on their face value.
       Considering allegations above as the factual acts alleged are to be
probed in course of investigation, the petition deserves to be rejected and
is rejected.



                                                   (C. M. TOTLA), J.

scd