1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2009
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4867 of
2007)
Parminder Kaur ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of the High
Court, whereby, the High Court has dismissed an application
filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called “Cr.P.C.” for
short) for quashing the proceedings arising out of charge
2
sheet of case No. 3045 of 2004 under Sections
420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
called “IPC” for short), pending in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
3. This prosecution was initiated on the basis of the
First Information Report (FIR) dated 27.2.2004 lodged by
one Hargursharan Singh (complainant) against the appellant
herein, alleging the offences under aforementioned
Sections. As per the said complainant, by respondent no.2
one Amrinder Kaur and her husband Col. Hargobind Singh
owned agricultural property, bearing Khata Nos. 40 and 2.
They were unable to look after the property and, therefore,
appointed Hargursharan Singh, respondent No. 2 herein (the
real brother of Col. Hargobind Singh), as their general
attorney. Respondent No. 2 herein, by virtue of general
power of attorney, sold the aforementioned land and
delivered possession to the purchasers. He described
appellant-Parminder Kaur as a stranger. Two Civil Suits
came to be filed by the appellant, Parminder Kaur, claiming
to be holding Power of Attorney for Amrinder Kaur, against
the purchasers. They were Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and
267 of 2002. In those Civil Suits, she prayed for the
cancellation of the Sale Deeds. According to the
3
prosecution, while instituting these suits on 27.5.2002,
the appellant had filed a false affidavit that she had come
to know regarding the Sale Deed only on 16.5.2002 and had
obtained a certified copy of Revenue Record on 27.5.2002.
According to the complainant, in fact, the appellant had
actually moved for the certified copy of Khatauni on
6.5.2002 and had already received the copy on 7.5.2002. On
that allegation, it was contended in the FIR that she had
committed the offences as alleged. The High Court took the
view that the FIR, as well as, the material collected by
the prosecution were good enough at least to proceed and it
could not be said that no offence was disclosed from the
same. It is this judgment of the High Court, which is
challenged before us.
4. We have seen the FIR closely, on the basis of which
the offences were registered. This report has been
authored by respondent No. 2 Hargursharan Singh S/o Shri
Gurbaksh Singh. It has been stated in this report that he
held a power of attorney on behalf of one Col. Hargobind
Singh and “Amrinder Kaur” and on that basis, he sold the
land of Amrinder Kaur to one Col. Sarabjeet Singh S/o Avtar
Singh and Namrata Chandi D/o Hargursharan Singh (i.e. the
daughter of the complainant). It was pointed out that the
4
registration was effected in the same year. Similarly, he
had sold one other land of Col. Hargobind Singh to one
Prabhjyot Singh S/o Teja Singh and Balbir Singh S/o Gurjit
Singh. He also claimed that some other land out of the
total land was also sold to one Manjeet Singh S/o Jagir
Singh and Balbir Singh S/o Gurjit Singh. It was further
asserted that the lands were in cultivation of the vendees.
One “unrelated lady” Parminder Kaur W/o Col. Hargobind
Singh, R/o Village Behait, Distt. Rampur, who had no right
in the said land, had filed two Civil Suits, being Civil
Suit Nos. 266 of 2002 and 267 of 2002 against Hargursharan
Singh (the complainant) and also filed Civil Suit No. 268
of 2002 against Prabhjyot Singh in the Court of Civil
Judge, Rampur. It was claimed that said suits were pending
disposal. It was further claimed that the suits were filed
by Parminder Kaur (appellant herein) and she supported the
same with a false affidavit, in which she stated that she
learnt about the sale of agricultural land on 16.5.2002 and
immediately, she applied for the certified copy of the
Revenue records, which were made available to her on
27.5.2002 and without any delay, she filed the present
suit. It was pointed out further that Parminder Kaur
(appellant herein) had already applied for certified copy
of Revenue Records on 6.5.2002 and the same was made
5
available to her on 7.5.2002. However, to overcome the
limitation, she altered the date from 6.5.2002 to 16.5.2002
and 7.5.2002 to 17.5.2002 and 27.5.2002. It was further
claimed in the said report that Parminder Kaur had filed
Civil Suit No. 267 of 2002 in the capacity of power of
attorney on behalf of “Amrinder Hargobind Singh” and in
fact, she had no concern with the land in question. It was
further pointed out that the real owners of the land had
not objected to the sale of land and the sale was being
objected to by Parminder Kaur, who was an “unrelated woman”
and she had no right to interfere. It was then claimed
that Parminder Kaur, in order to cause loss to the
complainant, interpolated the dates of Revenue Records and,
therefore, the documents were forged and the same were
produced in the Court in order to defraud the Court and a
false affidavit had been sworn in the Court and she was
liable to be punished for the same. With the FIR, the
affidavit dated 27.5.2002 sworn by Parminder Kaur in Suit
Nos. 266 of 2002 and 268 of 2002 were filed alongwith other
documents like Duplicate Khata No. 40, Duplicate Khatoni
No. 40, Duplicate Khatoni Khata No. 2, Search Certificate
dated 11.6.2002 of Office Asstt. Manager, Bilaspur, reply
dated 10.6.2002 and 26.9.2002 and Form No. 148 dated
6.5.2005 given to one Surender Kumar by Tehsildar for
6
certified copy. It is on this basis that the offence was
registered, investigated into and the chargesheet was filed
against the present appellant Parminder Kaur.
5. The present appellant Parminder Kaur is 74 years old
lady. It is claimed in the Special Leave Petition that the
present appellant, in fact is the wife of Col. Hargobind
Singh and is having indifferent health. It is claimed that
Parmindar Kaur is none else, but the complainant’s
brother’s wife and it was she who had filed the three
aforementioned suits, being Civil Suit Nos. 266 of 2002,
267 of 2002 and 268 of 2002 on 27.5.2002. It is pointed
out in the Special Leave Petition that she had, in fact,
applied for the certified copy of the Revenue Records and
it was she who prosecuted the suits in her capacity as the
wife of Col. Hargobind Singh. She also clarified that she
had applied for the Revenue Records on 16.5.2002 and the
same were made available to her on 27.5.2002 and she had
given certified copies to her counsel Shri O.P. Gupta.
Further she has pointed out that earlier the power of
attorney was executed by husband of appellant, Col.
Hargobind Singh in favour of the complainant/respondent No.
2 on 3.7.1970 with regard to the land in question, however,
it was revoked on 29.7.1975. She then pointed out that her
7
daughter Amrinder Kaur executed a power of attorney with
regard to her land on 27.3.1991 and revoked the same in
April, 1991. The further claim is that after the certified
copies of Revenue Records were given to her counsel Shri
O.P. Gupta, she was asked at that time to put signatures on
40 blank papers. Her contention is that she had nothing to
gain by altering the date on the certified copies by adding
“1”, i.e., making “16” instead of “6” and “17” instead of
“7”. She further alleged that at the instance of Shri O.P.
Gupta, she was dubbed as a hardened criminal and two
criminal cases were registered against her. She also
points out that she was taken to Rampur from Chandigarh and
she was dumped in a dark cell and she remained in the
custody for about a week and was granted bail only by the
District Judge, Rampur. Her contention is that all these
were the schemes conceived by the respondent No. 2 to
anyhow put her behind the bars. She points out that in one
of the matters, respondent No. 2 Hargursharan Singh has
claimed to be the owner on the basis of adverse possession
of a land owned by her. She further points out that a mere
look at the documents in Civil Suit could show that she was
never in Rampur on 27.5.2002 when the plaint was supposed
to have been filed.
8
6. We have seen the papers filed alongwith the Special
Leave Petition, viz., Annexure P-3 on Page 42 of the
Special Leave Petition’s Paper Book, wherein the date for
submission of application has been shown to be 6.5.2002 and
the date of delivery has been shown to be 7.5.2002. On the
first page of the document, it is shown that the land of
Col. Hargobind Singh S/o Gurbaksh Singh was transferred in
the name of Manjeet Singh S/o Jagir Singh and Balbir Singh
S/o Gurjit Singh on the basis of Sale Deed for
Rs.2,78,000/-. On the second page of the Annexure, it is
shown that the land of Col. Hargobind Singh stood
transferred in the name of Prabhjyot Singh vide Sale Deed
for Rs.4,60,000.
7. We have also seen the plaint in Civil Suit No. 266 of
2002. The plaintiff is described as “Col. Hargobind Singh,
Major S/o Shri Gurbaksh Singh R/o Village Behait, Tehsil
Bilaspur, Distt. Rampur (U.P.) through attorney Smt.
Parminder Kaur W/o Col. Hargobind Singh R/o Village Behait
Tehsil Bilaspur, Distt. Rampur (U.P.)”. In Para 1 also,
Parminder Kaur has described herself as the wife of Col.
Hargobind Singh and it is asserted that the suit was being
filed on behalf of Col. Hargobind Singh in the capacity of
his attorney. Paras 2 and 3 of the plaint gives the
9
description of the various lands held by Col. Hargobind
Singh. In Para 4, it is pointed out that Hargursharan
Singh was appointed as attorney vide power of attorney
dated 3.4.1970. Para 5 of the plaint suggests the
revocation of the power of attorney and the intimation
thereof to the concerned authorities like Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Bilaspur and the respondent No. 2 etc. In Para
6, it is pointed out that Sardar Hargursharan Singh
executed a forged and fabricated Sale Deed with regard to
the land comprising in Gatha No. 1/15 M. area 5.36 acres in
favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Manjeet Singh and
Balbir Singh respectively, without any right or authority
posing himself as a general attorney of Col. Hargobind
Singh and got the same registered, whereas on that day, he
had no such right or authority for executing a Sale Deed.
On that day, i.e. on 10.1.1996, he was not a general power
of attorney holder at all. It was pointed out that the
mutation was also got done by the respondent No. 2 herein.
In the plaint, it is suggested in Para 8 that plaintiff
(Parminder Kaur) came to know about the cheating through
the Record Keeper for the first time on 16.5.2002, when she
asked for the copy of Khatoni. Para further goes on to say
that:
1
“plaintiff got inspected the Revenue Records in the
Office of Registrar, Kannungo, Bilaspur and on the
same day, filled up the Form for getting certified
copies of the copy of the Khatoni and today dated
27.5.2002 after getting the copy of the Khatoni, is
filing the present suit without any delay.”
Again in Para 10, it is suggested that for the first time
the cause of action arose on 16.5.2002 due to the execution
of forged and void Sale Deed by Manjeet Singh (defendant
No. 1 therein) without any right or authority. The plaint
is shown to be filed on 27.5.2002. There is a verification
also on that date. There is then an affidavit on record,
again signed by Parminder Kaur, aged about 65 years, W/o
Col. Hargobind Singh, R/o Village Behait, Tehsil Bilaspur,
Distt. Rampur, U.P., where all the contentions raised in
the plaint are reiterated. We have seen the original
affidavits also, which are in the name of Parminder Kaur.
Similar such affidavits are to be seen alongwith the
Special Leave Petition.
8. In so far as C.S.No.267 of 2002 is concerned, the same
was filed by the appellant on behalf of her daughter
Amrinder Kaur for whom she was holding power of attorney
dated 4.2.2002. Therein she sought setting side of the
sale deed dated 3.7.1991 effected by the respondent no.2
herein on the ground that the respondent no.2 had no
authority to effect the sale of the land of Amrinder Kaur.
1
The power of attorney dated 27.3.1991 effected by Amrinder
Kaur was already cancelled before the date of sale. In
that suit also she claimed that she had came to know of the
fraudulent sale on 16.5.2002 when she inspected the revenue
record which suggested that the concerned land was no more
recorded in the name of Amrinder Kaur. Further the
appellant filed a suit bearing C.S. No.268 of 2002 against
Prabhjyot Singh on the same lines.
9. The respondent no.2 also initiated one more criminal
matter in which he asserted before the court regarding the
same land that he was in adverse possession of the land in
respect of which the civil suits were filed by the
appellant herein. Besides these civil suits, she has also
filed proceedings before the Revenue authorities for the
change of revenue entries in her favour. It may be noticed
that those revenue entries in respect of the lands stood in
favour of the vendees whose vendor was none else but the
respondent no.2. Ultimately the appellant did not succeed
in those proceedings and hence she seems to have filed the
aforementioned civil suits.
10. On the basis of the aforementioned so-called forgeries
a First Information Report bearing No.32 of 2004 vide Crime
No.75 of 2004 was registered against the appellant. It
1
seems that in another Crime No.390 of 2003 pending in the
Court of CJM, Rampur, she had filed an exemption
application praying for exemption from personal appearance
which was granted while exemption application filed before
the Bilaspur Court was declined. Her Transfer Petitions
were also dismissed and those orders were maintained right
upto this Court.
11. The appellant then approached the High Court of
Allahabad by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing the proceedings arising out of the charge-
sheet of Case No.3045 of 2004 for the offence under
Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC. We have already given the
details of the First Information Report dated 27.2.2004 on
the basis of which the aforementioned prosecution had
commenced. The Allahabad High Court, however, declined to
interfere, relying on the judgment of this Court in K. Rama
Krishna & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr [AIR 2000 SC 3330].
The High Court expressed that it would be ordinarily
reluctant to interfere in the proceedings at the
interlocutory stage. The High Court also went on to record
that in the instant case there was no legal bar against the
continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of alleged
offence and it was not the case where the allegations in
1
the First Information Report even if are taken on the face
value did not constitute the offence alleged nor could it
be said that even without appreciating the evidence and
merely by looking at the complaint or the FIR or the
accompanying documents, the offence alleged was not
disclosed. It is this verdict of the High Court which is
challenged before us.
12. We must note, at this juncture, that the respondent
no.2 has filed a huge counter affidavit to the petition
filed by the appellant wherein every possible document has
been filed including all the documents in the earlier
Transfer Petitions, the Revenue proceedings as also the
pending criminal proceedings. Based on the assertion of
the counter, his basic plea is that he was holding a valid
power of attorney for the appellant and it was on the basis
of that power that he sold the lands and had also given all
the considerations to his brother Col. Hargobind Singh and
the appellant. He also admits that he sold the land
belonging to their daughter Amarinder Kaur. However,
before the criminal court he asserted that he was in
possession of the land right from 1954 or somewhere
thereafter and hence had become owner by way of adverse
possession. It is quite interesting to note his
1
aforementioned stand which he has given on oath before the
criminal court which has been brought to our notice and
which is not denied by the respondent no.2. However, this
is neither the occasion nor the proper stage to consider
the merits or de-merits of the said plea. All that we are
concerned with is, whether the appellant could be said to
have committed the offence of forgery, cheating, etc.,
which are being alleged against her on the basis of which
she is facing the prosecution. We have, therefore, heard
the parties extensively in this regard.
13. We find that the huge counter affidavit of about 346
pages is of no use as it merely relates to the pending
litigation between the parties. However, one thing is very
certain therefrom that the appellant on the one hand and
the respondent no.2 on the other hand are bitterly fighting
civil litigations which are pending before the Rampur
Courts. These litigations started from the year 2002
firstly in revenue Courts and then with the filing of three
Civil Suits about which we have already mentioned above.
The concerned FIR appears to have been filed on 27.2.2004,
i.e., when the civil litigations, i.e., CS No.266 of 2002,
CS 267 of 2002 and CS 268 of 2002 were pending. The very
fact that the criminal proceedings were initiated by the
1
respondent no.2 who was none else but the real brother-in-
law (husband’s real younger brother) against his sister-in-
law whom he described as an “unrelated person”, the
appellant herein, who is about 75 years of age speaks
volumes in so far as propriety of such criminal
prosecutions is concerned. It is absolutely clear from the
manner in which the litigation is being fought that it is
nothing but to wreak vengeance that the criminal
prosecution has been started. We particularly find the
total absence of bona fides on the part of the respondent
no.2 to file the First Information Report which we have
quoted above. We also are at a loss to understand as to
what offence has been committed by the appellant herein and
how could the court take cognizance of the FIR filed by the
Bilaspur Police Station. This is a classic example where
the concerned Investigating Officer of the Bilaspur Police
Station has totally subverted the investigation system and
started the prosecution of an old lady. We are also
surprised that the said old lady was arrested and had to
stay behind the bars for more than a week which fact is not
disputed by even the counsel for the State of U.P. We
also fail to understand as to how the trial court took
cognizance of a non-existent offence mechanically.
1
14. The only allegation which appears from the First
Information Report is that the appellant altered the date
from “6.5.2002” to “16.5.2002” and “7.5.2002” to
“17.5.2002” and “27.5.2002”. It seems from the certified
copy that though she had applied for the certified copies
of the revenue records on 6.5.2002 and the same were made
available to her on 7.5.2002, she altered those dates in
the copies filed by her in the court to “16.5.2002” and
“17.5.2002” as also “27.5.2002”. This is all the forgery
which has been complained of by the respondent no.2 in the
aforementioned FIR. It is only on this basis that it is
suggested that the said civil suits were filed on 27.5.2002
and a false affidavit was sworn by the appellant. It is
pointed out that in that affidavit also she had given the
wrong dates. The only basis for this allegation is in the
following words:
“This interpolation of dates is apparent because
from 15.5.2002 to 30.5.02 no one inspected the
records of Khata No.40 of Village Beehat. That
in the letter dated 26.9.02 it has been made
clear that the certified copy with regard to
Khata No.40 situated in village Beehat Khatoni
1.4.02 to 1.4.07 was got ready on 7.5.02 itself.”
It is then contended that:
“Smt.Parminder Kaur in order to cause loss to the
applicant interpolated the dates of revenue
records and thus the documents are forged and the
1same were produced in the court in order to
defraud the court and false affidavit has been
filed in the court which is a crime…”
(emphasis supplied)
We specifically put a query to Shri Das, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. as also
to the learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 to show
us as to what advantage would the appellant be put to by
changing the dates from “6” to “16” and “7” to “17” or as
the case may be “27” and how loss would be caused to the
respondent no.2. Learned counsel were not able the answer
the question. At one point of time in the innumerable
affidavits which were filed before us and as also in the
written submissions on behalf of the respondent no.2 it is
asserted that this has been done by the appellant to save
the limitation. We again asked the learned counsel as to
how the limitation could be saved by adding “1” before the
figure “6.5.2002” and “7.5.2002 to which the learned
counsel had no answer and indeed they could not have any
such answer. The case of the appellant throughout appears
to be that she did not do it. Firstly, she contends that
she did not file the civil suit on 27.5.2002 because she
was not present at the time of filing of the civil suit on
27.5.2002 and that the civil suits appear to have been
1filed through her counsel Shri O.P. Gupta. She had made
very serious allegations against Shri Gupta. We will not
go into those allegations as we are not called upon to do
so nor do we find it necessary to do so. However, the fact
remains that even if we presume that somebody interpolated
the records by adding the figure “1” and even if it is
presumed that the appellant did so, still it does not
become a forged document.
15. The first Section of the IPC alleged against the
appellant is Section 420 and we are at a complete loss to
understand as to how the offence could even be alleged
against the appellant on the basis of the so-called
forgery. Therefore, that Section is out of question.
Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC which reads as
under:
“463. Forgery – Whoever makes any false documents
or false electronic record or part of a document
or electronic record, with intent to cause damage
or injury to the public or to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any
person to part with property, or to enter into
any express or implied contract, or with intent
to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.”
We do not find as to how the change brought in by adding
figure “1” could cause damage or injury to public or
1
anybody or how it could support the claim or title or how
it could cause any person to part with property or for that
matter how there could be any intention to commit fraund.
16. The second Section alleged is Section 467 IPC which
reads as under:
“467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a
valuable security, or a will, or an authority to
adopt a son, or which purports to give authority
to any person to make or transfer any valuable
security, or to receive the principal, interest
or dividends thereon, or to receive or delivery
any money, movable property, or valuable
security, or any document purporting to be an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment
of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the
delivery of any movable property or valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life, or with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.”
A mere look at the section would suggest that even this
office could not be alleged against the appellant.
17. The next Section is Section 468 IPC which reads as
under:
“468. Forgery for purpose of cheating – Whoever
commits forgery, intending that the document or
electronic record forged shall be used for the
purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.”
2
This is the aggravated form of forgery which is punishable
under Section 465 and is defined under Section 464 IPC.
Section 464 speaks of making a false document. The Section
reads as under:
“464. Making a false document. A person is said
to make a false document or false electronic
record –
First. – Who dishonestly or fraudulently –
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document
or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or
part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any
electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a
document or the authenticity of the digital
signature.
With the intention of causing it to be believed
that such document, or a part of document,
electronic record or digital signature was made,
signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed
by or by the authority of a person by whom or by
whose authority he knows that it was not made,
signed, sealed, executed or affixed; orSecondly. – Who, without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic
record in any material part thereof, after it has
been made, executed or affixed with digital
signature either by himself or by any other
person, whether such person be living or dead at
the time of such alteration, or
2Thirdly – who dishonestly or fraudulently causes
any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a
document or an electronic record or to affix his
digital signature on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness
of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason
of deception practiced upon him, he does not know
the contents of the document or electronic record
or the nature of the alteration.”
The first clause suggests that person makes a false
document if he –
(1) dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals
or executes a document, or part of a document, or
makes any mark denoting the execution of a document;
and(2) does as above with the intention of causing it to
be believed that such document or part of a document
was made, signed, sealed or executed,
(a) by or by the authority of a person by whom or by
whose authority it was not so made, signed, sealed or
executed, or
(b) at a time at which he knows that it was not made,
signed, sealed or executed;
It is not the case here. To attract the second clause of
Section 464 there has to be alteration of document
dishonestly and fraudulently. So in order to attract the
clause “secondly” if the document is to be altered it has
to be for some gain or with such objective on the part of
the accused. Merely changing a document does not make it a
false document. Therefore, presuming that the figure “1”
was added as was done in this case, it cannot be said that
2
the document became false for the simple reason that the
appellant had nothing to gain from the same. She was not
going to save the bar of limitation.
18. The last offence which is alleged against the
appellant is Section 471 IPC. This section is not
applicable in the case of the appellant for the simple
reason that we have already found that there was no
dishonest intention on the part of the appellant nor had
she acted fraudulently. This Section applies only in case
of the use of a forged document as a genuine document.
Since we have found that there is no element of forgery at
all, there would be no question of there being any valid
allegation against the appellant.
19. We are surprised at the manner in which the
investigation was done and the manner in which the
cognizance was taken by the courts below. In its written
submissions also the State has merely justified that the
figure of “1” was added in order to show that there was no
latches or negligence for filing civil suits. We do not
understand as to how 10 days could have amounted to latches
or negligence because ultimately the suits seem to have
been filed after 10 days. The State has also relied upon
the reported decision in Bharat Parekh vs. Central Bureau
2
of Investigation [(2008) 10 SCC 109] and has justified that
all this can be considered at the time of framing of
charges. We are surprised at the attitude of the State
when it is apparent on the record that the whole
prosecution is malafide, malicious and vengeanceful only to
settle the scores of respondent no.2 against the appellant.
A little effort has been made by the State to rely on the
dismissal of the earlier Transfer Petitions. We have seen
the judgment of this Court whereby the Transfer Petitions
were dismissed. There is absolutely no relevance of that
judgment to the present controversy. There, this Court was
not called upon to decide as to whether the FIR and the
other material did suggest any commission of offence by the
appellant. This Court simply went on the convenience of
the parties to reject the transfer petition. In fact
during the debate when we put specific questions as to what
advantage would the appellant get by aforementioned so-
called forgery, the learned counsel for State was unable to
answer. The same was the case with the learned Senior
Counsel who appeared for respondent no.2. He was also
unable to justify the same. All through we found that the
respondent no.2 was more keen than necessary and even after
the arguments were over, the respondent no.2 has come out
with the legal submissions whereby he had firstly withdrawn
2
the power of the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for
him. We have also seen those legal submissions. Very
interestingly, in those legal submissions, the respondent
no.2 says in para 2(a):
“the respondent no.2 is the youngest in the whole
family and was kept to serve the cause of my
brother who is elder to me by 16 years. I was
always kept oppressed and depressed and was
subjected to mental and physical torture,
blackmailing & exploitation at the hands of my
brother & bhabhi – the petitioner herein. My
father died in 1985 and after that my brother &
bhabhi had let loose their terror on me. This is
for the first time that I have been compelled to
approach the court for my survival. My brother
was in the Indian Army who had agricultural lands
in village Behait, tehsil Bilaspur, Distt.
Rampur. He had given me power of attorney duly
registered from Dist Saugour, M.P. on 3.4.1970,
which is valid till today and has not been
cancelled so far.”
The expressions in the above submissions are self-
sufficient. If the respondent no.2 was kept oppressed and
depressed at the instance of the appellant and her husband,
we wonder as to how a power of attorney could be given and
continued in his name. Further the allegations are wanton,
irresponsible and irrelevant. Heavy attempt has been made
in the legal submissions to refer to the earlier Transfer
Petitions which were dismissed by this Court. We have
already shown as to how the Transfer Petitions were
irrelevant. At one place it is suggested as follows:
2
“The petitioner is wise enough to create equity
in her favour by alleging that she is ailing and
ageing woman of 73 years having daughters and no
son. There is no provision in the Indian
Constitution which entitles and empowers a senior
citizen of India to commit economic as well as
criminal offences and side by side provides full
protection and shelter from getting the person
persecuted, if found guilty.”
In para 2(e) of his submissions, respondent no. 2 states:
“Now the petitioner has been raising the issue as
to what benefit she was going to derive from
forging the dates from 6.5.02 to 16.5.02 and from
7.5.02 to 17.5.02 & 27.5.02. The correct answer
to this has to be given by a person who has
committed this fraud as is laid down u/s 106 of
the Evidence Act. This is a self confessional
case in which the petitioner has mentioned
categorically that the forgery in changing the
dates has been committed by her Advocate. She is
habitual in committing fraud, whenever she gets
opportunity to do so, just for greed of money and
to get more and more material possession. If she
was not going to derive any benefit from changing
the dates from 10 to 20 days than why she has
committed this fraud. She cannot be absolved
from committing the forgery which requires her
trial in the appropriate court. In fact it is
not an ordinary case of condoning the delay of 10
to 20 days but is a part of deep rooted
conspiracy to usurp and grab the land of five
families consisting of 40 members whose future
and livelihood has been put at stakes by the
petitioner. After the land was sold by her
husband and her daughter through their attorney,
to common relations of both, the respondent no.2
and the husband of the petitioner, the land
prices had gone up by 10 times which led the
petitioner to file six cases after a period of 11
years with malafide intention to grab the land.”
(emphasis supplied)
2We have deliberately quoted the whole para in order to show
that even the respondent no.2 has not been able to show as
to how the appellant could be benefited in any manner by
changing the dates. We, therefore, find that since there
was no question of the appellant gaining anything, she
would not have made the aforementioned changes in the
document. How the document is changed is not for us to
explain. However, whosoever may have changed those
documents, the said change did not and could not result in
any illegal gains to the appellant or illegal loss to
anybody. Such changes were, therefore, innocuous and did
not give rise to any offences.
20. We do not go into the merits as we are completely
convinced that this is a case for a malicious and
vengeanceful prosecution which has no base. It is,
therefore, well covered under the Guidelines 1 and 7 laid
down by this Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335] which read as under:
“1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima-
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
2
2-6 xxx xxx xxx
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.”
21. This is apart from the fact that we are completely
convinced of the whole lack of bona fides on the part of
the Investigating Officer who is reported to have retired
now. Even he has filed a Reply Affidavit before us as we
had directed him to attend the court seeing the utter
misuse of his powers of investigation.
22. We expected some explanation and some justification
for the arrest as well as for the subsequent investigation
of the non-existing crimes. Obviously the whole affidavit,
which we have seen very closely, is silent. Again reliance
has been made on the earlier Transfer Petitions by this
Police Officer also which is totally irrelevant for the
present controversy. He has not explained as to how he
viewed the same as an offence of forgery, cheating, etc.,
2
and for that matter how dishonest intention was deduced by
him.
23. In view of the above we are of the clear opinion that
this prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of
law and we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the
impugned judgment and quash the Prosecution Case No.3045 of
2004 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rampur.
…………………………………….J.
(Tarun Chatterjee)
………………………………….J.
(V.S. Sirpurkar)
New Delhi
October 26, 2009
2