AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pritinker Diwaker, J.—The Petitioners have filed this petition for quashment of the FIR dated 3-10-2009 lodged by Respondent No. 3-Vivekanand Singh, in respect of Crime No. 320/2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, IPC registered at Police Station, Bemetera, District Durg, C.G.
Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, narration of the facts of the case would be necessary for disposal of this petition. One Ram Saran Deo was the Mahant of various temples situated at Vrindavan (UP), Amarkantak (MP) and different villages of Tehsil Bemetera, District Durg, CG who had executed a Will (Annexure P-2) on 15-1-2006 in favour of Petitioner No. 2 Mahant Shri Sekhar Sharan Deo herein of whom the Petitioner No. 1 Vijay Kishore Goswami is the father. It is said that within three days of execution of the said Will at Vrindavan, said Mahant Ram Saran Das expired in one of the hospitals situated at Vrindavan (UP). Further undisputed facts are that the Will was in respect of various properties of three States, i.e., U.P., M.P. and C.G. including about 700 acres of land and also the other properties in the State of Chhattisgarh. Further, undisputed facts are that on or about 27-6-2009 one Brij Bihari lodged an FIR (Exh. P-5) before Police Station, Vrindavan, Mathura (U.P.), vide Crime No. 593/2009, English translation of which as furnished by the Petitioners read as under:
Form No. 1 First Information Report (under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure)
District: Mathura P.S.: Vrindavan Year: 2009 FIR No. 208/09, dated 27-6-09
Code: Indian Penal Code Sections: 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC
Code: Sections:
Code: Sections:
Date of incident: 18-1-2006
Information received in Police: Station 27-6-09 at 15.30 hrs.
Rojnamcha sanha No. : Entry No. 27 at 15.30 hrs.
Type of information: Typed
Place of incident: Seva Kunj
Distance & Direction from Police: Station 1 km in the West
Address
If beyond the territorial jurisdiction: of the Police Station Name of P.S... Janpad ...
Name: Brijbihari s/o Parsadi Lal r/o Chhipi Gali, Vrindavan, Mathura
Date of birth/year ... Nationality ...
Passport No. ... Date of issue ...
Place ...
Occupation ... Post ...
Department ...
Particulars of suspected/known/unknown accused:
Sr. Name Father''s name Village P.S. Janpad
Vijay Kishore Goswami Late Kishore Goswami Seva Kunj Vrindavan Mathura
Smt. Sakun w/o Vijay Kishore -do- --do-- --do--
Shekhar s/o Vijay Kishore --do-- --do-- --do--
Meenu d/o Vijay Kishore --do-- --do-- --do--
Reasons for delay in lodging FIR by the complainant/informant
Details of kidnapped/related property
Total value of kidnapped/related property
Merg Intimation No. (if any)
Details of marks present over the person
Question
Answer
Work done: on the basis of above information, offence has been registered under above mentioned sections.
Post: SSI Shri Vijay Singh
Investigation is started on the direction of Area Officer/Transferred to the
Police station.
Sign/thumb impression of complainant/informant
(Illegible)
Signature of in-charge
Name: S.G. Pandey
Post: Sub Inspector
Personal No. , if any:
To,
The In-charge Inspector,
PS. Vrindavan, Vrindavan (Mathura)
Sub.: Regarding grabbing of about 1000 acre of land, residential colony & Dharamshala of Radhe Bihari Murti Mandir on the strength of forged Will.
Sir,
I, Brijbihari s/o Late Parsadilal, am resident of Chhipi Street, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura (U.P.). I am follower of Late Mahant Shri Ram Sharan Dev, Radhe-Bihari Idol Temple, Village Baba-Mohtara, P.S. Bemetera, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) who used to visit Vrindavan. Late Mahant Shri Ram Sharan Dev Ji was heart patient and in October, 2005 his by-pass surgery was done in Escorts Hospital, New Delhi. After the operation, Vijay Kishore Goswami, son of Late Roop Kishore Goswami, resident of Sita Kunj, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura has stopped Mahant Ji in his house. One day suddenly Mahant Ji was admitted in the Ramkrishan Mission Sevashram, Brindavan. When I visited the said hospital on 18-1-2006 to meet him, I came to know that Mahant Ji has expired. After death ceremonies of Mahant Ji were going on and we all used to go to attend the same. During the period, 3-4 days after, in the evening Kishore Goswami, his wife Shakun, son Shekhar & daughter Meetu asked me to sign on the Will allegedly written by Late Mahant. I appended my signature on the said Will treating the same as the last wish of Mahant Ji. Thereafter, after about 6-7 months, Vijay Kishore Goswami and his aforesaid family members took me to Village Baba-Mohtara, P.S. Bemetera, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) on the pretext that some religious works of Mahant Ji is to be performed. Thereafter, Vijay Kumar Goswami took me to Bemetera market and from where he took me to Bemetera Tehsil Office were one clerk was sitting and he took my signature on a blank paper. Mahant Shri Rambali Das met me and scolded saying that Brijbihari you allowed the transfer of 1000 acre of land, residential colony and property at Vrindavan, value of which is in crores, in favour of a fraud person who is habitual of doing such thing. He had shown me all the relevant papers, copies of which are annexed with the application. All these things surprised me and I felt that I have committed mistake. Therefore, it is prayed that offence be registered against the persons at fault and necessary strict action be taken against them.
Further undisputed facts are that after enquiry on 3-10-2009 another FIR has been lodged by Respondent No. 3 Viveka Nand Singh in Police Station Bemetera (C.G.) vide Crime No. 320/2009, English translation of which as furnished by the Petitioners reads as under:
Form No. 1
District: Durg P.S.: Bemetera Year: 2009 FIR No. 320/09, dated 3-10-09
1. Code: Indian Penal Code Sections: 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC
Code: Sections:
Code: Sections:
Other Code and Sections
(a) Rojnamcha sanha No.
(b) Day of incident: Dated: after 18-1-09
Time:
(c) Date on which information received in police station: 3-10-09 at 20.30 hrs Ro Sa. Kr. 165
Types of information: Written/oral
Place of incident: Direction & distance from Police Station 6 kms. East. Place of incident: Village Baba Mohalla, P.S. Bemetera
If the place of incident falls within the jurisdiction of other police Distt...
Name of complainant/informant Name: Vivekanand Singh, resident of Vrindavan, Father/ Husband/Guardian''s name: Late Shri R.P. Pandey
Age: 58 years Nationality: Indian Passport No. ... Date of issuance ...
Place from where it was issued Occupation: Service (Sub Inspector)
Address P.S. Bemetera, District: Durg
Details of accused known/ unknown/suspect Vijay Kishore Goswami, Shekhar Sharan Dev s/o Vijay Kishore Goswami, resident of Baba Mohtara
Explanation by the complainant/information regarding delayed report
Details of kidnapped/related property
Total value of kidnapped/ related property
Merg Intimation No. (if any)
Description of first information:
I am posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station Bemetera. In compliance of the letter bearing No. Pu. A./Durg/CC/254910, dated 30-9-09 issued from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Durg to the SDO (P), Bemetera for registration of FIR, the SDO (P), Bemetera has directed me in writing to register the crime. On perusal of the application of the applicant Vivekanand Sinha, r/o Vrindavan it revealed that one Ramsaran Dev was the owner of total land of 774 acres situated in Villages Baba Mohtara, Chhetapara, Piparbhatta, Khairbhitti, Kusmi and Bhoinabhata. Non-applicant Vijay Kishore Goswami hatched up a conspiracy and got transferred the said land of Baba Ramsaran Dev in the name of his minor son Shekhar Saran Dev by way forged Will dated 15-1-06 and after the death of said Ramsaran Dev on 18-1-03 obtained possession of the said land. As the alleged offence was found to be committed, offence was registered and matter was taken up for investigation.
To,
The Superintendent of Police,
District Durg (CG)
Sub.: Regarding registration of crime against Vijay Goswami as he fraudulently got transferred the lands of Mahant Ramsaran Dev situated in Villages Baba-Mohtara, Chhetapara, Piparbhatta, Khairghitti, Kusmi and Bhoinabhata in favour of his minor son Shekhar Sharan Deo through an unregistered Will dated 15-1-06.
Sir,
One Mahant Ram Sharan Deo was the Mahant and care taker of the Radhe Bihar Temple, Pawanputra Hanuman Temple. Radhe Gaushala Temple at Bara Mohtara, Chhetapara, Dhara, Bhoinabhata and Radha Bihari Temple of Village Bara Mohtara, Chhetapara, Radhadamodar Temple and other agricultural lands. These properties were allegedly bequeathed by Vijay Goswami in favour of his minor son by virtue of unregistered Will dated 15-1-2006 whereas Ram Sharan died on 18-1-2006. In this regard an handwriting expert reports dated 7-6-2007 has been submitted wherein it has been opined that the original signature does not tally with the signature contained in the Will. The Will dated 15-1-2006 shows name of Ramjilal Agrawal son of Bholanath Agrawal Vrindavan, District Mathura as attestee witness No. 1. An affidavit has been shown by witness Ramjilal that his signature shown in the Will has been forged and a copy of this is annexed with the report. Affidavit of Ramjilal Agarwal is annexed with the report. On the basis of that forged Will Vijay Goswami the said land of 774 acres situated in Village Baba Mahetara, Chhetapara, Dara, Kusmi (Bahra) Bhoinabhata Piparbhatta, Khairbhitti was transferred in the name of his minor son Shekhar, fraudulently. Whereas, the same is a forged Will as per report of the expert. Hence, action be taken against persons involved. Certified copies of Will dated 15-1-06 and report of handwriting expert dated 7-6-07 may be treated as part and parcel of this report. The aforesaid facts came into light when in the Court at Khairgarh when along with the application for bringing legal heirs of deceased Ramsaran Dev on record, which was probably filed on 13-3-06, the said Will has been filed. After coming to know about the said Will sometime has been lapsed in obtaining copy of the Will from the Court, report of the handwriting expert and affidavit of said Ramjilal Agarwal and due to which there is some delay in lodging the report. Documents annexed with the application dated 1-8-09 of the applicant Vivekanand Singh s/o Yudhisthir Singh r/o Village Rajpur Tehsil Sadar, PS. Vrindavan, District Mathura (U.P.) are (1) Will dated 15-1-06 and certified copy of the report of handwriting expert dated 7-6-07 (2) copy of the affidavit of Ramjilal Agarwal.
Proceedings initiated:
Sign/thumb impression of complainant/informant
(illegible)
Signature of Incharge
Name: S.G. Pandey
Post: Sub Inspector
No., if any:
Copy:
To the Hon''ble Court of learned ACJM, Bemetera for information.
This second FIR sought to be quashed in this petition is under investigation and no final report has yet been submitted by the police authorities.
The main contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners is that in relation to the same subject matter FIR was lodged by one Brij Bihari vide Crime No. 593/2009 in Police Station Vrindavan, Mathura (UP) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC. However, after detailed enquiry final report (Khatma) u/s 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been submitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and the said report is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, for its consideration. According to the Counsel for the Petitioners for one offence there cannot be two FI Rs and in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SCW 2571 the second FIR lodged at Bemetera is liable to be quashed.
There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that for the same incident there cannot be two FI Rs. However, the case in hand is entirely different on facts from that of any other criminal case where two FI Rs are there in relation to the offence of murder or marpeet. In the present case, admittedly the properties of various temples are situated in three States and Late Ram Sharan Deo had executed the Will (Annexure P-2) in favour of Petitioner No. 2. It appears from the record that first FIR lodged at Vrindavan (UP) by Brij Bihari was entirely different from that of the second one which has been lodged at Bemetera Police Station by Respondent No. 3 Viveka Nand Singh. The lodger of the first FIR has stated that his signatures were obtained on the Will in question as one of the attesting witnesses subsequent to its execution after the death of Ram Sharan Deo. It appears from the said FIR that the alleged Will was already prepared showing the signature of the executant of the same and the signature of Shri Brij Bihari was obtained by the Petitioner No. 1 and his family members. It is also reflected that later on the Petitioner No. 1 had further obtained the signature of this attesting witness on a blank paper and thereafter about 1000 acres of agricultural and residential land worth crores of rupees has been transferred in the name of the Petitioners to whom the lodger of the FIR has termed as Bhoo Mafia. It appears that certain documents were shown in relation to the transfer of the land and while submitting the documents along with the FIR said Brij Bihari had requested for suitable action against the culprits after registering the case against them.
If the tenor of the second FIR is taken into consideration, the same specifically questions the Will (Annexure P-2) and calls for an enquiry regarding the same. In the second FIR, it has been categorically pointed out by its lodger, i.e., Respondent No. 3 herein as to in what manner the Respondent No. 1 had grabbed the property of various temples situated in the State of Chhattisgarh on the basis of a forged Will in favour of Petitioner No. 2. Second FIR clearly discloses the fact that lodger of the same has prima facie shown the signatures of the executant on the Will and other documents. It is categorically stated that signature of one Ramji Lal has been shown as attesting witness whereas he has given an affidavit clearly stating that he had not signed any such document and that his signatures are forged. Along with the second FIR, its lodger has also given all the related documents including the report of the hand writing expert Dr. Sunanda Denge clearly indicating that signatures of the executant of the said Will are not tallying with the signatures of the other documents. Thus, it is apparent that both the FI Rs cannot be called as one and the same and that for one transaction because in the first FIR as per its lodger he was cheated and his signatures were obtained on the Will as an attesting witness subsequent to the death of Ram Sharan Deo and therefore, the transaction was also questioned by him whereas the second FIR is very specific pertaining to the signatures of the executant of the Will and that of other attesting witness Ramji Lal.
Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the mode of evidence and investigation in both the cases may be different but ultimately the offence is in relation to the same incident regarding execution of Will and therefore, there cannot be two FI Rs for the same. According to the Counsel for the Petitioners for the same cause of action there cannot be two FI Rs and once the entire investigation has been done by Vrindavan Police and Final Report has been submitted, only course available to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is to forward the second FIR and the related documents to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vrindavan which would be considered by the said Court along with the Final Report submitted by the Vrindavan Police. He submits that as contents of both the FI Rs are substantially the same and lodger of the second FIR was also of Uttar Pradesh as mentioned in the second FIR itself, there was no occasion for the Chhattisgarh police to investigate the matter. Lodger of the first FIR, i.e., Brij Bihari was examined as attesting witness of the Will (Annexure P-2) before the Tehsildar, Bemetera and his statement is Annexure P-3. After considering the evidence of the parties the Tehsildar has already passed the order for mutation (Annexure P-4) and, therefore, the Will of late Ram Saran Deo cannot be doubted before the police authorities in the State of Chhattisgarh. He placed reliance on the decision of the Orissa High Court in the matter of Bubana Nayak v. State of Orissa, reported in 2005 Cri.LJ 2526 decision of Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Niranjan Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, and on the decision of Patna High Court in the matter of Raju Shah v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in AIR 2006 773.
On the other hand Counsel for the Respondent/State submits that both the FIR are substantially different and lodger of the first FIR namely Brij Bihari has sought for an enquiry on a different line stating that his signatures were obtained on the alleged Will by playing fraud whereas in the second FIR the validity of the Will has been questioned saying that same is fabricated and forged document as the attesting witness Ramji Lal has not signed the same. It is argued that in respect of signature of Ram Sharan Deo a report was given by the hand writing expert Dr. Sunanda Denge on 7-6-2007 and based on that the second FIR was lodged and during enquiry it was revealed by the police authorities that the said signature of Ram Sharan Deo was forged. Ramji Lal has given an affidavit that he has not made any signature on the Will as an attesting witness.
It is argued by the Counsel for the Respondents that attesting witness Ramji Lal has given an affidavit that his signatures on the Will have been forged by someone and that he has not signed any such Will. It is argued that in respect of signature of executant of Will namely Ram Sharan Deo a report has already been submitted by hand writing expert Dr. Sunanda Denge on 7-6-2007 and based on that second FIR was registered and during enquiry it was revealed by the police authorities that signature of Mahant Ram Saharn Deo is forged on the Will and to that extent opinion of the State Examiner of questioned documents namely N.K. Sikkewal, dated 16-9-2009 is on record. It is argued that second FIR is very categorical and specifically points out that the Will of Mahant Ram Sharan Deo is forged and the related documents have also been given by the lodger of the FIR whereas the first FIR, which was lodged by one Brij Bihari was in respect of the transaction made on the basis of forged Will. It is argued that the second FIR is a belated one and its version is somewhat different from the first one. It is argued that most of the land is situated in the State of Chhattisgarh and if the police makes an enquiry about the validity of the Will and wants to bring out the truth, no objection should be raised by the Petitioners. He submits that on the basis of forged Will in respect of the property situated in the State of Chhattisgarh if a detailed enquiry is made in the State of Chhattisgarh itself, no prejudice is going to the caused to the Petitioners. It is argued that before the police of Vrindavan Police Station (U.P.) relevant material was not supplied and that is why the final report has been submitted by the police whereas in the State of Chhattisgarh all the relevant documents have been supplied by the complainant/Respondent No. 3 Viveka Nand Singh, therefore, the further enquiry cannot be quashed. He submits that if such an enquiry is quashed, then the illegal act of the Petitioners would never be curbed and the truth will not see the light of the day. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kari Choudhary Vs. Most. Sita Devi and Others, , in the matter of Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and in the matter of Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration), .
This Court is not deciding the legality or validity of the Will (Annexure P-2) nor does it wish to pass any comment on the report of the hand writing expert Dr. Sunanda Denge submitted by Respondent No. 3 or the report submitted by the State Examiner of the questioned documents, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur but it appears that a fair and impartial inquiry is needed by the police authorities and therefore, FIR (Exh. P-1) lodged by Respondent No. 3 Viveka Nand Singh cannot be quashed at this stage. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner cannot derive any benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. (supra), and other judgments as cited by the Petitioners because factual position of the present case and the cases cited above is totally different.
In the matter of Kari Choudhary (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:
The result of the said factual development is this. The complainant Sita Devi in FIR No. 135 is allowed to persist with her complaint despite the conclusion reached by the police that the said complaint was false. But that course adopted by the Court cannot disable the police to continue to investigate into the offence of murder of Sugnia Devi and to reach the final conclusion regarding the real culprit of her murder. The police completed their investigation only when the charge-sheet was finally laid on 31-3-2000 against the first Respondent Sita Devi and others. The said case has to be legally adjudicated for which a trial by the Sessions Court is indispensable.
Learned Counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceedings initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR No. 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FI Rs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FI Rs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted to the Court styling it as FIR No. 208/1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the Court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceedings merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it.
Even otherwise, the investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation in respect of an offence in spite of forwarding a report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 on a previous occasion. This is clear from Section 173(8) of the Code.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed or not and if committed, who have committed the same. When the investigation is already in progress and the report of another hand writing expert namely Dr. Sunanda Denge also indicates that signature of the executant of the Will do not tally with the signatures on other documents, this Court does not think it proper to stop the investigating agency from proceeding further with the same. This apart, after detailed enquiry final report (Khatma) u/s 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been submitted by Police Station Vrindavan, Mathura (U.P.) on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Even otherwise, if the Petitioners are so sure that the Will in favour of the Petitioner No. 2 has been executed by Late Ram Sharan Deo in accordance with law, they should not be afraid in participating in the investigation so that the truth is unveiled especially when thousands of acres of land is involved in the case.
Accordingly, the petition seeking quashment of FIR dated 3-10-2009 lodged by Respondent No. 3 in respect of Crime No. 320/2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, IPC registered at Police Station, Bemetera, District Durg, being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such.