Vinod Prasad - (1.) -This is an unfortunate case where three siblings brothers alongwith their spouses are fighting with each other for the property dispute. Respondent No. 2 Vinod Kumar Verma is a set up ploy for harassment of the family of the rest of the two brothers. Because of the dexterity and vexatious prosecution, a couple sibling Bindu Bihari Verma and his wife and another brother Ram Asray Verma have approached this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C., through this criminal miscellaneous application with the prayer that the proceedings of Case No. 1403 of 2006, State v. Ram Asray Verma, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur alongwith the impugned order of cognizance and summoning order dated 10.2.2006 be quashed.
(2.) ABBREVIATED facts are that Ram Asray Verma (applicant No. 1), Bindu Bihari Verma (applicant No. 2) and Nanhey Lal Verma are uterine brothers all sons of late Panna Lal. Bindu Devi is the wife of Ram Asray Verma, Lalti Devi is the wife of Nanhey Lal Verma and Urimila Devi is the wife if Bindu Bihari Verma. According to the case of the informant, respondent No. 2 adumbrated in his application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C., which was registered as an F.I.R. under the orders of the C.J.M., Jaunpur as Crime No. 24 of 2005, under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, vide Annexure-5, to the appended affidavit, are that the informant respondent No. 2 Vinod Kumar Verma is the son of Ramjeet Seth and was very well acquainted with the deceased father Panna Lal Verma. Regarding the parental property, family feud started between the three brothers in which a family settlement was executed on 19.8.2003. Respondent No. 2 Vinod Kumar Verma and Narayan Prajapati signed on the said deed as witnesses and ultimately the said settlement deed was got notarized from Sunil Kumar Asthana advocate. To this effect Narayan Prajapati even filed an affidavit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. According to the prosecution version, the three brothers had purchased two houses, got it demolished and got one big house constructed with basement ground floor and first floor. Basement and ground floor were to be utilized for the commercial purposes by opening of a jewelllery shop in the name of Kirti Kunj Jewellers. First floor and second floor were to be utilized for residential purposes by the three sibling brothers. The business was to be carried by Nanhey Lal Verma with Urmila Devi and Lalti Devi as its partners. A dispute arose between brothers regarding the share in the property and therefore, applicant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Bindu Bihari Verma and Smt. Urmila Devi instituted O.S. No. 589 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaunpur on 8.12.2003 vide Annexure-2 to the appended affidavit. In the said suit the above mentioned family settlement dated 19.8.2003 (Annexure-1) was filed. According to the case of the informant respondent No. 2, Vinod Kumar Verma vide his F.I.R., Annexure-5 is that after signing the said family settlement, he went to Bombay in 2003 to be returned on 3.9.2005 to District Jaunpur and on his return he came to know that another affidavit denying his signature on the family settlement has been filed in the original suit by the applicants. It is mentioned in the said affidavit that no family settlement was reached and the signature of the informant and Narayan Prajapati were obtained on blank papers on which the family settlement was scribed. Informant had not given any such affidavit denying signing on the blank paper, which was utilized as family settlement. According to his version, the three applicants here got his signature on a blank paper on the pretext of mutating their names in the revenue records on the basis of family settlement and on that blank paper then prepared a false affidavit of the informant with contents denying the said family settlement along his photo. They also got the signature of the informant on a register by deceiving him on the aforementioned pretext. When the informant came to know of it, he moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. on 25.9.2003 on the basis of which, F.I.R. Annexure-5, was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur as Crime No. C24 of 2005 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C. Investigating Officer commenced the investigation and recorded Section 161, Cr. P.C., statements of informant Narayan Prajapati, Dinesh Kumar (Notary) and Bacchu Lal Gupta, Advocate vide Annexures-6 to 9 to the affidavit appended alongwith this application and vide parcha No. 3 came to the conclusion that the informant is an untruthful person. He, therefore, framed a final report on 7.11.2005 (Annexure-11) and submitted it before the Circle Officer concerned. Circle Officer, however, on 20.12.2005 ordered for further investigation vide Annexure-12 to the affidavit. The incumbent Investigating Officer again recorded the statements of the informant and Smt. Lalti Devi wife of Nanhey Lal Verma vide Annexures-13 and 14 to the appended affidavit and then submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants on 30.1.2006 vide charge-sheet C1/2006, in the Court of C.J.M., Jaunpur, who took cognizance of the offence on 10.2.2006, registered the Case No. 1403 of 2006 and fixed 24.2.2006 for the appearance of the applicants by issuing summons. Hence, this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the said proceeding.
(3.) I have heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel in support of this application and Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel in opposition alongwith learned A.G.A. Sri Sikandar B. Kochar and Sri Umesh Vats, Advocates, have also been heard in opposition. It is contended by Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel for the applicants that no offence is made out against the applicants. He further contended that prosecution of the applicants is nothing but mala fide only for the purpose of harassment and pressure tactics and this is one of such case, which is covered under Clauses 1, 8 and 9 of the grounds mentioned in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 362, for quashing of the prosecution. He submitted that no application under Section 340, Cr. P.C. was filed only for the purposes that the informant knew that he has filed an affidavit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, denying his signature on the family settlement vide Annexure-2 to the affidavit. He further submitted that the affidavit was filed in the original suit pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division and if the affidavit was false then the Civil Judge, Senior Division was competent to take action. He further submitted that the affidavit was against the interest of defendants Nanhey Lal Verma, his wife Lalti Devi, Ram Asray Verma (applicant No. 1) and his wife Bindu Devi. Why Ram Asray Verma, applicant No. 1 will get false affidavit prepared against his own interest, remains unexplained and hence informant's allegations are patently false and absurd. He further submitted that neither Nanhey Lal Verma nor his wife Lalti Devi moved any application before the civil court that the alleged affidavit alleged to have been filed by the applicants is a forged one. Learned counsel contended that the informant admitted that he had filed application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. (F.I.R.) at the behest of Nanhey Lal Verma, who was the defendant in the suit instituted by applicants Nos. 2 and 3 as plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in the charge-sheet only the informant and Lalti Devi wife of Nanhey Lal are the sole witnesses of fact. Learned counsel further submitted that Nanhey Lal Verma, the main person who had set up informant as a ploy did not get himself involved in the alleged crime even though he was worst affected person by the alleged forged affidavit. Learned counsel contended that without getting the opinion of the expert regarding the signature made by informant, the second Investigating Officer in connivance with Circle Officer, informant and Nanhey Lal Verma charge-sheeted the applicants. Whether the affidavit of informant was genuine or not was a fact, which could have been deciphered only by interrogation of the Public Notary and the Advocate, who got the said affidavit notarized but the same has not been done. Learned counsel contended that when the family settlement could not be denied by Nanhey Lal Verma and Lalti Devi in the original suit filed by the applicant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Bindu Bihari Verma and Smt. Urmila Devi then only, as a pressure tactics, he has set up the informant who was his servant for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel contended that opinion of the first Investigating Officer that informant is an untruthful person and he could not be relied upon was a correct conclusion. Learned counsel, therefore, concludingly contended that infact no offence is made out at all and as a pressure tactics the case was instituted against the applicants and without any further investigation and expert opinion regarding the povital of the controversy regarding genuineness of signature that a malicious charge-sheet has been submitted. Learned counsel contended that ipse dixit of the informant was taken to be a gospel truth by the second Investigating Officer when infact it is writ large on the record that he is an untrustworthy and untruthful person who is trying to benefit his master by making a false statement. Learned counsel further contended that the circle officer had no authority to withhold the submission of final report submitted by the first Investigating Officer and he was duty bound to forward it to the Court in accordance with Section 173 (3), Cr. P.C. Learned counsel further submitted that the F.R. which was initially submitted was detained in the office of the circle officer for more than a month because of the connivance of the circle officer with Nanhey Lal Verma husband of Lalti Devi. Learned counsel further submitted that it is case of single testimony of a person who is untrustworthy. He also pointed out that Lalti Devi second witness of fact is not an eye witness and her statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. clearly indicates that her evidence is a heresay evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the delay in filing the application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. is because of the fact that interregnum family settlement and filing of an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C., informant had changed the side from one brother to another brother and for ulterior motives he has launched a lame prosecution against the applicants. Concludingly, learned counsel contended that the prosecution of the applicants to be quashed by allowing this criminal miscellaneous application.;