Ramavtar Kediya @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

 Through these petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.61/2015 registered at the Police Station

Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B IPC.

The above FIR is one in the long list of cases registered in pursuance of a matrimonial rift which arose between the petitioner Ankit Garg and his wife

Ms. Khushbu (daughter of the respondent No.2 complainant). The respondent No.2 Radheyshyam’s (complainant) daughter Ms. Khushbu was

married to Ankit Garg on 20.06.2010. The matrimonial relationship between spouses fell out and numerous cases came to be instituted inter-se

between them. The petitioner Ankit Garg filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Hanumangarh for

dissolution of marriage whilst Smt. Khushbu filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both the matters were decided

simultaneously. During the inquiry of both these matters, the petitioner Ankit Garg submitted a rent deed claiming that as Smt. Khushbu was not

desirous of living in the joint family, Ankit Garg was compelled to take a separate house on rent so that the matrimonial relations could be continued.

The house was allegedly taken on rent on 01.07.2011 whereas, the stamp on which the written rent deed was executed, was issued on 04.03.2012.

Ramavtar Kediya (petitioner No.1 in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2951/2015) is the landlord, Shyam Sunder is a witness in the rent deed whereas Lalit

Garg happens to be the father of Ankit Garg. The FIR in question came to be lodged by respondent No.2 Radhey Shyam with an allegation that the

above mentioned rent deed was forged and fabricated and was created for defeating the lawful claim made by Smt. Khushbu in the application under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in order to create fictitious evidence in support of the divorce application filed by Shri Ankit Garg. The

Family Court, considered the entirety of facts and evidence led before it and decreed the application filed by Smt. Khushbu under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act. While deciding the matter, the learned Family Court held that Ankit Garg failed to prove that he had taken one room set house of

Ramavtar Kediya on rent. Manifestly thus, Ankit Garg did not get any wrongful gain by the rent deed referred to supra in relation whereto, the present

FIR has been lodged. The rent agreement, which was exhibited in the Family Court’s proceedings, simply reads that the premises were rented out

effective from 01.07.2011. The complainant alleged that the rent deed was prepared ante-date on a stamp purchased on 04.03.2012.

However, the I.O. has, during the course of investigation, collected the stamp vendor’s register and other material concluding that the stamp was

as a matter of fact, purchased by Ankit Garg on 04.03.2011 for procuring a bank loan, however, later on, he used the same to execute the rent deed.

The relevant findings of the I.O’s in the factual report are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:-

“mDr nksuka LVkEi isijksa ls lEcfU/kr LVkEi os.Mj ds LVkEi jftLVjksa ds voyksdu ls ik;k fd LVkEi jftLVj esa LVkEi foØ; dh fnukad 04-

032011 vafdr gSA rkjh[k ij dksbZ dafVx ugha dh gqbZ gS mDr LVkEi jftLVj esa Øekad 94747 ds LFkku ij 97447 vFkkZr mDr vadksa esa 47 ds

LFkku ij 74 fy[kuk 'kq: gks x;k FkkA tc ;g Øekad 97463 rd igaqpk rks mDr xyrh dk irk yxus ij LVkEi os.Mj jkeiky flag us vius LVkEi jftLVj esa Øe

la[;k 97447 ls 97463 rd 17 uEcjksa dks lgh djus ds fy;s vksoj jkbZfVax dj iqu% 74 ls LFkku 47 fy[k dj Øe la[;k dks nqjLr fd;k x;kA LVkEi os.Mj ds

xzkgd LVkEi isij ysdj rqjar pys tkrs gSA bl dkj.k vkjksih vafdr dqekj }kjk fy;s x;s LVkEi isij ij vafdr Øekad esa dksbZ rCnhyh ugha gks ldhA fnukad

04-03-2011 dks vafdr xxZ us Lo;a ,oa viuh ekrk t;Jh ds uke ls nks LVkEi isij Øe la[;k 97452 o 97453 Ø; fd;s gSA tks ,d gh fnuakd dks [kjhns x;s gS]

tc ekrk ds uke ls LVkEi ij fnukad 4-03-11 vafdr gS tks mlh Øe ds nwljs LVkEi 4-03-2012 ekuoh; Hkwyoaâ€k 11 ds LFkku ij 12 vafdr gSA jkeiky flag

LVkEi oS.Mj us Hkh vuqla/kku ds nkSjku crk;k fd Øekad 94746 ls 94763 rd fy[kus ds ckn Hkwy lq/kkj dj 97746 ls 97763 rd lgh uacj vafdr fd;s gSA

vksoj jkbZfVax ij LVkEi oS.Mj ds y?kq gLrk{kj fd;s gq;s gSA LVkEi jftLVj da voyksdu ls fnukad 04-03+-2012 dks vodkâ€k ¼jfookj½ gksus ds

dkj.k dksbZ LVkEi foØ; ugha gqvk gSA LVkEi jftLVj esa 03-03-2012 ds ckn 05-03-2012 dks LVkEi foØ; fd;s tkus ds bUnzkt gS rFkk fnukad 3-03-

2012 dks LVkEi jftLVj esa Øe la[;k 80552 rFkk fnuakd 5-03-2012 dks Øe la[;k 80564 ls “kq: gq;s gS] ftuesa Øe la[;k 97452 vafdr ugha gSA

mDr LVkEi isij ij Øe la[;k 97452 ds lkFk fnuakd 04-03-2012 pyrh dye esa xyrh ls vafdr gksuh ikbZ xbZ gSA tcfd rQrhâ€​k esa ;g fnukad 4-03-2012 ds

LFkku ij fnuakd 4-03-2011 gh gksuh ikbZ xbZ gSA dfFkr vkjksih vafdr xxZ us vius uke ls [kjhnâ€kqnk LVkEi dk iz;ksx cSad yksu ds ,xzhesaV djus

ckcr [kjhn fd;k FkkA exj fnuakd 1-07-2011 dks vius o viuh iRuh [kqâ€kcq ds vyx fuokl ckcr Jh jke vorkj dsfM;k iq= Nksxey tkfr vxzoky iâ€s kk

dfeâ€ku ,sts.V fuoklh edku uÅ'a 1411 vjcu LVsV f}rh; fglkj ¼gfj;k.kk½ dk edku fdjk;k ij ysus ds dkj.k fdjk;kukek fy[kus ckcr mDr LVkEi isij

Øekad 97452 dks mi;ksx esa fy;k x;k gSA mDr fdjk;sukes dks fnukad 01-07-2011 dks dfFkr vkjksih ,lds tSu ,MoksdsV fMLVªhd dksVZ jksgrd }kjk

dsoy ;g izekf.kr fd;k x;k gS fd] mi;qDr fdjk;kukek ij gLrk{kj esjs le{k fd;s x;s gSA ,l ds tSu ek= ,MoksdsV gS] fdjk;kukek uksVsjh rLnhd ugha gSA

mDr fdjk;kukek fy[ks LVkEi ds lkFk gh dfFkr vkjksih vafdr xxZ dh ekrk ds uke ih ,u ch cSad yksu gsrq ,d LVkEi Ø; fd;k x;k gSA vafdr xxZ dk

,DlhMsaV gksus ds dkj.k LVkEi yksu gsrq dke esa ugha fy;s x;s gSA vkjksih vafdr xxZ dh iRuh [kqâ€kcq }kjk fnukad 17-05-2013 dks dfFkr vkjksih

vafdr ds fo:/k fganw fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9 ds rgr ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; guqekuxfnukad 28-05-2013 dks fganw fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 ds rgr rykd ;kfpdk ftyk U;k;k/khâ€k ¼ikfjokfjd U;k;ky;½ fglkj esa isâ€k dhA tks ;kfpdk

Hkh okLrs fopkj.k ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; guqekuxlkFk djus ds nkSjku dfFkr vkjksih vafdr us vius uke ls [kfjnâ€kqnk LVkEi ij fdjk;kukek fy[kokdj ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa fopkj.k ds nkSjku isâ€k fd;kA

ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk bl fdjk;sukek ds QthZ gksus ckcr dksbZ fVIi.kh vafdr ugha dhA mDr LVkEi isij ftl iz;kstu ds fy;s Ø; fd;k x;k FkkA ml iz;kstu esa

dke ugha ysdj fdjk;sukek ds fy;s dke esa voâ€; fy;k x;k gSA ysfdu LVkEi isij ij fy[kk fdjk;kukek dwVjfpr ugha gSA vuqla/kku lR;kiu ls dfFkr

vkjksih;ku vafdr xxZ iq= yfyr xxZ] “;kelqUnj iq= xaxkfcâ€ku] jkekorkj iq= Nksxey tkfr vxzoky fuoklh fglkj ,l ds tSu ,MoksdsV fMLVªhd dksVZ

jksgrd ds fo:/k vijk/k /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 474] 120ch vkbZihlh izekf.kr ugha gSA iwoZ vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh Jh vkSeizdkâ€k tksâ€kh iqfyl mi

v/kh{kd ¼yho fjtoZ½ jsat dk;kZy; chdkusj }kjk fd;s x;s vuqla/kku dh iqf""V gksuh ikbZ o urhtk ,Qvkj vne odw ¼>wB½ gksuk ik;kAâ€​

Shri Bora, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that ex-facie, the allegation sets out in the FIR regarding the rent deed being

fabricated forged is baseless. The rent deed cannot be covered within the definition of a false document as defined in Section 464 IPC. He further

submitted that if at all the complainant claimed that Ankit Garg tried to lead false evidence in the Family Court on the strength of disputed rent deed

then, only the procedure to seek prosecution in relation to such document would be of filing a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and registration of

FIR at the complainant’s instance is impermissible in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. He thus implored the Court to exercise its

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the impugned FIR which as per Shri Bora amounts to a gross abuse of process of law.

Per contra, Shri Vineet Jain, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’

counsel.

Learned Public Prosecutor, with reference to the I.O.’s factual report, candidly conceded that the I.O. has found that the date of issuance

mentioned on the stamp was erroneously written as 04.03.2012 whereas the stamp was actually purchased on 04.03.2011. Corresponding entries of

the stamp vendor’s register were collected by the I.O. which corroborate this conclusion.

Manifestly thus, the rent deed cannot be termed to be a forged or ante-dated document by any stretch of imagination. It cannot also be branded as a

valuable security so far as the complainant is concerned because none of the complainant’s rights were adversely effected or curtailed by the so-

called fraudulent procurement of the rent deed by Shri Ankit Garg. If at all, the complainant was desirous of prosecuting the accused for leading false

evidence before the Family Court, then the only remedy available to him would have been to take recourse of the procedure provided in Section 340

Cr.P.C. because the alleged attempt of leading false evidence was in a court proceedings and only the court could have directed filing of complaint in

relation thereto. Ex-facie, the Family court did not form any opinion in the judgment dated 14.08.2014 that the document was forged or that it

amounted to an attempt to lead false evidence.

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that allowing proceedings of the impugned FIR to be continued against the petitioners

herein would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law.

Resultantly, these misc. petitions deserve acceptance and are hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No. 61/2015 registered at the Police Station

Hanumangarh Junction and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are hereby quashed.

A copy of this order be placed in each file.