HITESH JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Keshav Murty, the learned counsel appearing along with Mr. Amritansh Vats the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. R.R.Tiwary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Town Police Station, Daltonganj P.S.Case No.84/2017, corresponding to G.R.Case No.753/2017, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau.

(3.) The First Information Report was lodged by the O.P.no.2 alleging therein that two cases are already pending against the petitioner which were filed by her father Shri Sripati Singh; that the petitioner was sent to jail under the charges u/s 420 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistate, through a warrant and the petitioner has submitted an application for bail; that the petitioner, in the bail application is the first party and Ms. Khushboo Singh is the second party in an agreement in which the signature of Ms. Khushboo Singh has been shown. Whereas, Ms. Khushboo Singh contends that she has not entered into any sort of agreement with the petitioner; that the petitioner has forged and faked the documents, in which the forged signature of Ms. Khushboo Singh is shown, with the objective of troubling, cheating and damaging Ms Khushboo Singh and to take advantage in the case filed by the father and with the intention to mislead the Hon'ble Court; that Ms. Khushboo Singh was informed about the alleged agreement by her father, Shri Sripati Singh, over phone and when her father asked if she has entered into any kind of agreement with the petitioner then she told her father that she has not entered into any agreement with the petitioner. When she received the copy of the agreement by mail, she saw that her signature on the document is fake and forged; that the bail application which is submitted by the petitioner, which is also given to the advocate of the father of Ms. Khushboo attached to the agreement, it can be clearly seen that the document is fake and forged in which the signature of Ms. Khushboo is also fake and forged. It can be clearly seen that the petitioner has an objective of damaging and causing troubles to Ms. Khushboo Singh by forging her signature; that the petitioner in future also can do this type of forgery and causing of troubling Ms. Khushboo and with the objective of causing fraud, can do this type of forgery and faking of signature and make documents to his use; that Ms. Khushboo Singh is depositing a photocopy of the alleged agreement by the petitioner so that the verification of the signature of Ms. Khushboo can be done.