Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6083/2004 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6083 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RAMANLAL
PURUSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
PRAKASH K JANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 06/09/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Present
petition under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
has been preferred by the petitioners – original accused to
quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report being CR
No.I-165 of 2004 filed by the respondent No.2 herein –
original complainant before the J.P. Road Police Station for the
offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 120(B)
and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
That
the respondent No.2 – original complainant has filed the First
Information Report being CR No.I-165 of 2004 before the J.P. Road
Police Station against the petitioners – original accused, for the
offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 120(B)
and 114 of Indian Penal Code on 17/4/2004 alleging inter-alia that
the petitioners have concocted and forged one relinquishment
document with respect to the property in question and used the same
as true and correct knowingfully well that the same is forged and
concocted one and the alleged signature of the complainant on the
said relinquishment deed, which was produced by the petitioners
before the revisional authority is not of that of the complainant.
Before
any investigation could be done by the investigating
officer, petitioners preferred present petition and stay is
granted against further investigation.
Mr.S.P.
Majmudar, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated at the bar
that though pleaded in the petition, the petitioners are not praying
to quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report on the
ground that civil proceedings are pending with respect to the very
documents. It is submitted that the petitioners are praying for
quashing the impugned First Information Report solely on the ground
of delay. Mr.Majmudar, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied
upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh (Dead) Through
LRs. Versus Gurpal Singh and others, reported in 2011
(1) GLR 894 in support of his above submission. It is submitted
by Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that as observed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court
when First Information Report has been lodged belatedly and/or
there is delay in lodging the First Information Report, the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Having
heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
parties, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the
allegations against the petitioners in the impugned First
Information Report are with respect to forging the signature of the
complainant and creating forged document of relinquishment of right
by the complainant in the property in question and the same was
produced before the revenue authorities as true one. The
investigation is yet to be carried out and completed and even the
document in question is required to be sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory and it is yet to be ascertained whether the alleged
signature of the complainant on the said document is that of the
complainant or not. Therefore, at present it cannot be said that
the petitioners have not committed any offence, as alleged. It is
required to be noted that the learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated
that he is not praying to stay and/or to quash and set aside the
impugned First Information Report on the ground that civil
proceedings by way of First Appeal are pending before this Court.
However, it is to be noted that in the Civil Suit filed with respect
to the very property, which was filed for partition, a Preliminary
Decree has been drawn disbelieving the document in question. This
court is not considering the aforesaid aspect in detail, as the
learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioners has not made any submission on the
same. Suffice it to say that the investigation with respect to the
document in question, which is alleged to have been forged one, is
yet to be conducted by the investigating
officer and therefore, solely on the ground of delay, First
Information Report is not required to be quashed and set aside at
the threshhold without any investigation. If on investigation the
allegations found to be true and it is found that the signature on
the relinquishment deed is not that of the complainant and the same
is forged one, the petitioners can be prosecuted, otherwise,
appropriate order can be passed. Under the circumstances, even
considering the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh (Dead)
Through LRs. (supra) when the investigation is yet to be carried
out, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to
exercise powers under sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
to quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report, where
the investigation is yet to be carried out.
In
view of the above, present petition under
section 482 to quash and set aside the
aforesaid impugned First Information Report at the threshhold fails
and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief
granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top