Pinki Devi vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 9th September 2010 passed in Civil Review No. 115 of 2009, whereby it has been ordered that the matter is required to be thoroughly investigated by the police upon lodging F.I.R. as prima facie it was a case of fraud committed by the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the meaning of the word "literate" and therefore, he has committed error.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has examined the matter and gave certificate. In the said certificate, it is mentioned that the document was issued by the Institution after verification and the certificate is correct and genuine.

We are constrained to observe that such contention is not available to the Petitioner in view of the statement of fact recorded in the main order by which the Petitioner''s writ petition was decided on the basis of the facts which occurred and happened in the Court itself. Therefore, the finding, which been recorded on the basis of the event, which has happened in the Court, it cannot be diluted because of any finding given by the Deputy Commissioner certifying that the certificate is genuine. We are also constrained to again observe that the issue that the certificate may be genuine signed by the right person but question is whether it was given to a right person or not. When the Court has clearly observed that the Petitioner was called in Court and she could not read a single sentence written in Hindi. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are absolutely misplaced and have no relevance.

We have perused the order dated 9th September 2010 as well as the facts taken note in the order itself with respect to the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has recorded, in the impugned order that the Petitioner was not in a position to read a single sentence in the Court. Since we are hearing this appeal against the order passed in the review petition, we need not examine all other aspects and it is the Single Judge order with respect to lodging of the FIR for holding investigation. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.