Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aftab Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-14759-2016
(AFTAB KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 27-02-2018
Mr. D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. C.K. Misha, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Mr. Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
sh None appeared on behalf the Respondent No.5.
e The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of ad the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the First Information Pr Report at Crime No.498/2016, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Sehore for offences under Section 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal a hy Code.
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts which are ad necessary for disposal of this petition are that, a report was lodged by M Respondent No.4- Samim Ahmed stating that Aftab Khan has prepared a forged letter and claims himself to be the Chairman of of Wakf Committee of Sehore for 5 years. The letter allegedly issued by rt M.P. Wakf Board, Bhopal. On verification, it was found that the letter ou was not issued by the office of Wakf Board, Bhopal. He further claims that the petitioner has misused Board's letter and notarized an affidavit C to cheat the members of Muslim Community. The document dated h 11.02.2016 has been forged, by which he claims himself to the ig Chairman of District Wakf Committee, Sehore. On this written H complaint Police lodged FIR for offences under Section 420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is claimed that the stamp paper was not purchased by him, but was purchased by respondent No.5- Keshar Khan. The stamp paper was duly signed by him but the same was not typed when his signature was obtained. It was blank when he signed it. But, later on, typing was made by respondent No.4 and 5 hatching a conspiracy to involve the petitioner. It is also claimed that against Samim Ahmed respondent No.4 number of cases are registered, for he has criminal background. The application filed by the petitioner to Superintendent of Police on 11.04.2016, brought no result.
4. On behalf of the respondent/State No.1 to 3 the petition is vehemently opposed and it is contended that the petitioner has executed a forged document and declared himself as the President of the Wakf Committee, Sehore, and he had also fraudulently withdrawn Rs.81,000/- from the Wakf Board. He also executed tenancy agreements, receipts, bill books and prepared documents for wrongful gain, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief at this stage.
sh
5. On behalf of respondent No.5 the petition is opposed and e it is contended that the petitioner has not denied his signatures on the ad letter and affidavit dated 11.2.2016. The stamp paper was purchased Pr by him and executed by him. It is also contended that he executed certain tenancy documents and also withdrawn the Wakf money a money. The petitioner has moved an application to the Superintendent hy of Police on 11.4.2016 after commission of offence, whereas on ad 16.2.2016 written complaint was made to the Police against the M petitioner.
6. Perused the record and the documents available in the of case.
7. The statements of the witnesses also reveal that the rt petitioner had executed the documents. His signature was obtained ou prior to typing of the stamp paper dated 11.2.2016, is a matter of C evidence. Without any inquiry it would not be proper to come to the h conclusion that such allegations are true or not. The allegations made ig in the FIR make out a prima facie case against the accused and H specially when the accused does not disown his signature on the consent letter/stamp paper. Such allegation can not be said to be patently absurd and inherently improbable. At this stage, it would be not proper to embark upon an inquiry. Hence, the matter can be examined only by the Court concerned after the entire material is produced before it.
8. With the above discussion, this petition is dismissed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by RAJESH T MAMTANI Date: 2018.03.06 13:38:26 +05'30' H ig RM h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh