Kalawati vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

73 years old senior citizen father (petitioner No.3) is pitted against his son i.e. respondent No.2 (complainant) alongwith his two daughters i.e. petitioners No.1 & 2 (sisters of the complainant), in what appears to be a family dispute which is being given colour of criminal culpability. More of it later. The petitioners are seeking quashing of an FIR No.258/2024, dated 02.09.2024, registered at P.S. Padampur, District Ganganagar, for an alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC.

Briefly speaking the relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner No.3 (father of the complainant) has two pieces of land in Chak 45 LNP First, measuring 1.999 htrs. and in Chak 45 LNP Second, measuring 1.227 htrs. It is stated that on 31.12.2021, petitioners’ brother, namely Ranveer, filed a revenue suit for partition before SDM under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, in which his brother impleaded his father, two sisters, and his brother i.e. the complainant as respondents. Subsequently, his brother (Ranveer) with the help of the petitioners, filed a compromise application on behalf of all the respondents (including complainant herein) on 10.01.2022. In the compromise application, he forged the signature of the complainant. Pursuant thereto, the SDM decreed the suit by order dated 18.01.2022. As a result, the entire land of Chak 45 LNP First owned by the father was mutated in the name of his brother Ranveer.

2.1 On police complaint dated 02.09.2024 filed by the respondent No.2, an FIR bearing No. 258/2024 was registered for the offence under Section 420 of IPC at Police Station Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, against the present petitioners and others, including brother Ranveer.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the FIR fails to disclose any offense committed by the petitioners. It appears to have been registered with ulterior motives aimed at causing harm to the petitioners and seizing the disputed land. Allowing the FIR to stand would lead to a manifest injustice, warranting its quashing.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that no interference is warranted of this Court and law will take its own course.

It transpires that the sisters and father are before this Court and the allegation of forgery in any case is against the brother. Therefore, there is no role attributed to either of the sisters or the father. Moreover, it transpires that even if the allegation is assumed to be correct, conceded position is that neither the sisters nor the father stands to gain from the alleged forgery. Furthermore, what is most intriguing herein, conceded case of the complainant is that the father is the sole owner of the property and as to how would he gain by being a conspirator to forge the signatures also leaves this Court wondering as to how is criminal culpability attributable to the father. The FIR is, therefore, nothing but an abuse of process qua the petitioners herein.

Moreover, the complainant alleges that his brother Ranveer filed a partition suit, claiming that the complainant’s signature was forged on a compromise application. However, this assertion underscores that the petitioners had no involvement with the documents in question.

Even if the prosecution's narrative is accepted, it reveals that the purported forged signature was used in an application submitted before the S.D.M. Padampur. This indicates no deceit was perpetrated against the complainant. Furthermore, the complainant did not file a formal complaint with the S.D.M. regarding any alleged forgery. Under Sections 340 and 195 of the Cr.P.C., only the S.D.M. or another competent authority can initiate action after an inquiry.

Reference may also be had to a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No.4893/2024, decided on 06.08.2024

, relevant of which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“22.2. For ready reference, Section 420 IPC is also reproduced hereinbelow:-

"S. 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Aforesaid Section 420 IPC has been retained as it is, in verbatim, as section 318 (4) in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and reads as under:-

“318. Cheating. –

(4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

22.3. The provision, ibid, thus envisages that the act of cheating where a person deceives someone ought to be such, whereby the deceived person is induced to:

Deliver any property to another person.

Make, alter, or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security.

Modify or destroy anything signed, sealed, and capable of being converted into a valuable security.

The provision thus highlights the serious consequences of using deceit to manipulate others into parting with property or altering valuable documents.”

In the present case also, no ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are made out. The FIR in question, thus, does not stand the judicial scrutiny of this Court.

Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR No.258/2024, dated 02.09.2024, registered at P.S. Padampur, District Ganganagar is hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.