Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kaushallya And Another vs State Of Haryana on 4 April, 2022
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 6652 of 2021
Date of Decision: 04.04.2022
Kaushallya and another
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
.......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners, by filing the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seek grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 0829 of 16.12.2020, which was registered against them, at Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar, constituting therein offences under Sections 420 / 467 / 468 / 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. This Court, through an order made on 12.02.2021, had granted ad interim bail to the bail applicants / petitioners.
3. The bail applicants / petitioners, namely, Kaushallya, and, Baljeet, alongwith one Nisha, and, one Menka, are the co-owners in the property concerned. In the application for partition, as, filed before the competent authority concerned, obviously for the makings of dismemberment through metes and bounds of the undivided property concerned, the complainants allege, that their forged signatures were made thereons, and, the afore incriminatory role is attributed to the present bail 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 02:17:24 ::: CRM-M No. 6652 of 2021 -2- petitioners. Moreover, it is also alleged by the complainants / co-owner in the undivided property / land, that also in the vakalatnama, the forged signatures were made at the instance of the bail petitioners.
4. The effect of the makings of the afore forged signatures, has resulted in a purported wrongful loss becoming caused to the complainants, and, purported wrongful gain being caused to the accused, inasmuch as, the latter proceeding to obtain an order from the revenue officer(s) concerned, wherethrough dismemberment through metes and bounds of the undivided property concerned, did ensue, which was otherwise not amenable for any valid dismemberments through metes and bounds, and, which rather became facilitated through the accused indulging in committing the offence of forgery. It is also alleged that the allotments made through an unlawful partition being ordered by the revenue officer concerned, has resulted in the apposite allotments, as, made therethrough to the complainants, carrying monetary value(s) proportionately much lesser, than the monetary value(s) of the property(ies) allotted to the accused, and, also obviously hence the afore purported wrongful loss, and, wrongful gain rather happening.
5. Prima facie, the afore made allegations, at this stage, were required to be tested through a report / opinion being elicited from the Handwriting Expert concerned, at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Haryana, Madhuban.
6. The admitted specimen signatures of both the petitioners as well as the admitted / specimens signatures of the complainant, one, Nisha, alongwith the disputed signatures occurring on the application for partition, and, on the vakalatnama, all became sent for their apposite comparisons 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 02:17:25 ::: CRM-M No. 6652 of 2021 -3- being made by Handwriting Expert concerned, working at FSL, Madhuban. The relevant portion of the Handwriting Expert is extracted hereinafter:-
" Inter-se comparison of admitted signatures marked A1 to A5 (of the year 2007) with specimens marked S1 to S36 (of the year 2021) reveals that there is a time gap of approx thirteen (13) years between admitted signatures marked A1 to A5 and specimens marked S1 to S36. Despite the time gap, all these signatures are freely written, do not show any evidence of imitation in their line quality and also show natural variations which are generally observed in the genuine signatures of an individual written over a period of time under varying circumstances and are reasonably inter-se consistent among them. "
7. A perusal of the above extracted portion, does underline, the factum that the comparison(s), as, made by the Handwriting Expert concerned, qua the apposite documents, rather revealing that there occuring inter se consistency inter se all, and, the admitted / specimen writings of one Nisha, co-aggrieved.
8. However, per se upon the afore opinion, though obviously prima facie, no inculpation can be drawn against the present bail petitioners, as, the above opinion is not made after the admitted writings (supra) becoming compared with the disputed signature(s). Moreover, thereafter the Handwriting Expert concerned, in the hereinafter extracted relevant portion of his report, has, upon his examining the specimen(s) / admitted handwritings of one Baljeet and one Kaushalya, rather with the disputed handwritings, and, signatures marked Q1 to Q3, pronounced that the present bail petitioners remain unconnected with the authorship of questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q3.
3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 02:17:25 ::: CRM-M No. 6652 of 2021 -4- " Considerable labor and time have been spent in the examination and comparison of supplied specimens marked S181 to S216 (stated to be of Sh. Baljeet Singh) as well as marked S361 to S396 (stated to be of Ms. Kaushalya) with questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q3 but it has not been possible to connect the authorship of questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q3 with any of the supplied specimens marked S181 to S216 (stated to be of Sh. Baljeet Singh) as well as marked S361 to S396 (stated to be of Ms. Kaushalya)."
9. Moreover, though the Handwriting Expert has also, in the hereafter extracted portion of the relevant report, made an opinion adverse qua the present bail petitioners.
" The aforesaid divergences are fundamental in nature and are beyond the range of natural variations and intended disguise and when considered collectively they lead to the opinion that the person who wrote red enclosed signatures stamped and marked A6 to A14, S37 to S72 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q4 to Q6."
10. However, per se thereupon no inculpation can be drawn against the present bail petitioners, as thereafter in the relevant portion thereof, as, becomes extracted hereinafter, the Handwriting Expert concerned, pronounced that the bail petitioner-Baljeet Singh, rather remains unconnected with the authorship of questioned signatures marked Q4 to Q6, obviously upon, comparisons thereto(s) being made with his supplied specimens / admitted writings, marked as S217 to S252.
" Considerable labor and time have been spent in the examination and comparison of supplied specimens marked S217 to S252 (stated to be of Sh. Baljeet Singh) with questioned signatures marked Q4 to Q6 but it has not been possible to connect the authorship of questioned signatures 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 02:17:25 ::: CRM-M No. 6652 of 2021 -5- marked Q4 to Q6 with supplied specimens marked S217 to S252 (stated to be of Sh. Baljeet Singh)."
11. Moreover, upon his comparing the admitted signatures of one Menka with her supplied specimen signatures, he has made the hereinafter extracted opinion:-
" Inter-se comparison of admitted signatures marked A15 to A23 (of the year 2020) with specimens marked S73 to S108 (of the year 2021) reveals all these signatures are freely written, do not show any evidence of limitation in their line quality and also show natural variations and are reasonably inter-se consistent among them."
12. In the hereinafter extracted portion, the Handwriting Expert concerned has, after making the relevant examinations, has made hence an opinion " Differences are also observed in the nature and class of other elements of writing, such as : Writing movement, Writing skill, Speed, Relative size and proportion of characters;
The aforesaid divergences are fundamental in nature and are beyond the range of natural variations and intended disguise and when considered collectively they lead to the opinion that the person who wrote red enclosed signatures stamped and marked S109 to S144 did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q10 to Q12."
13. However, yet no inculpation can be per se drawn qua the bail petitioners. Moreover, in the relevant hereinafter extracted opinion, of the Handwriting Expert, though he has therein pronounced the possibility of co- accused-Baljeet writing the questioned signature(s) marked Q10 to Q12. Nonetheless, the above mentioned possibility of co-accused - Baljeet, authoring the disputed signatures marked Q10 to Q12, cannot obviously, 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 02:17:25 ::: CRM-M No. 6652 of 2021 -6- make the above opinion to fall within the realm of certainty or can make the opinion (supra) to fall within the domain of the required completest formability, whereas, a clinching affirmative report against co-accused - Baljeet Singh, was rather required to be made by the Handwriting Expert concerned, especially with respect to the questioned signatures marked Q10 to Q12.
"............. which lead to the opinion possibility that the person who wrote red enclosed specimens stamped and marked S289 to S360 (stated to be of Sh. Baljeet) also wrote the red enclosed questioned signatures similarly stamped and marked Q10 to Q12, cannot be ruled out."
14. The lack of the Handwriting Expert concerned, in pronouncing with candid specifity about the makings of the questioned signatures marked Q10 To Q12, rather by one Baljeet, does bolster an opinion, that the above lack of firmness of opinion, prima facie, cannot sustain any inculpation against the co-accused concerned.
15. Moreover, when at this stage no material has been placed on record by the prosecution, that the purported mis-allotment, as, made to the petitioners, rather through theirs practising forgery, has also resulted in the tracts of land / property becoming allotted to them, rather comprising of monetary value(s), in a proportionately higher sum(s), that the value(s) of properties allotted to the complainant, and, hence, causing wrongful loss to the complainants. The above evidence was comprised in the memorandum of partition, as, became drawn prior to the culmination of partition proceedings, rather becoming unilaterally drawn, and, without participations thereins of the complainant(s). However, evidence qua the above is completely amiss. Therefore, unless evidence emerged in respect of the 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 02:17:25 ::: CRM-M No. 6652 of 2021 -7- preparation of MOP, being non-consensual or evidence emerged in respect of throughout the partition proceedings, the complainants never participating. However, when evidence (supra) is amiss, therefore, prima facie, at this stage, their inculpation would be unmeritworthy. Therefore, it cannot be said, that irrespective of the factum of forgery becoming allegedly practised by the petitioners, that they through the order of partition, hence secured allotment of property, higher in value than the one as became allotted to the complainants concerned, and, nor hence it can be concluded, that the petitioners committed an offence constituted under Section 420 of the IPC.
16. Moreover, the validity of order of partition, especially on the above score, can be tested in a civil suit instituted by the aggrieved - complainant, before the learned Civil Court concerned, whereins the seeking of relief of setting aside, and, quashing of the partition proceedings, rather can be strived, as on the relevant issues evidence can yet become adduced, and, can become appreciated. Therefore, awaiting the above decree of a Civil Court, and, thereupon, when preponderance is assigned to the verdict, as, may become drawn by the Civil Judge concerned, upon, the Civil Suit concerned, than to the criminal proceedings. Consequently, this Court, at this stage, does not deem it fit to order for the custodial interrogation of the present bail petitioners.
17. Consequently, this Court makes absolute the order made by this Court on 12.02.2021 on the same terms and conditions. However, the making of absolute of the afore order shall be subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 02:17:25 ::: CRM-M No. 6652 of 2021 -8- Investigating Officer concerned, is also directed to forthwith ensure the furnishing before him, by the bail-applicants, of personal and surety bonds, in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. The afore order is also subject to their (petitioners) not tampering with prosecution evidence, and/or not influencing prosecution witnesses, and, also, as and when they are summoned by the Investigating Officer, through a written Hukamnama, theirs cooperating in the investigations to be made into the offence(s) concerned.
18. Any observation made hereinabove is in respect of the disposal of the instant petition, and, shall not be taken to be any observation on the merits of the case, and, nor the learned trial Judge concerned, shall be influenced from the afore order, as and when the learned trial Judge concerned, enters upon the trial, against the accused.
19. Disposed of.
April 04, 2022 ( SURESHWAR THAKUR )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2022 02:17:25 :::