Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Balkar Singh & Anr vs Balkar Singh & Others on 11 August, 2010
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. 561-A CrPC No. 164 OF 2009 Balkar Singh & anr. Petitioners State of J&K & anr Respondent !Mr. Rajnish Oswal, Advocate ^Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate for no.1.Nemo for complainant-respondent no.2. Honble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir Date: 11.08.2010 :J U D G M E N T :
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in case State vs Balkar Singh & others, whereby they came to be charge sheeted for commission of the offence punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 of Ranbir Penal Code (for short, RPC) and for quashing the proceedings of the case, on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.
It is averred in the petition that the petitioners-accused are not involved in the commission of any offence. The material collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer nowhere prima facie discloses that they are involved in the commission of any offence. It appears that respondent no.2-Kewal Krishan Gandotra filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and the SHO concerned came to be directed to conduct the investigation. Accordingly FIR No.35/2004 came to be registered in Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu. The police conducted the investigation and presented Challan against all the accused, i.e., petitioners and one Mohd. Bashir for the commission of offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 447, 467, 468 and 471 RPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, who committed the same to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. The Principal Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu. The trial court-3rd Addl. Sessions Judge after hearing the additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused prima facie came to the conclusion that the accused-petitioners herein are involved in the commission of offence punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 RPC and accordingly came to be charge sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused-Mohd. Bashir came to be discharged. The order of discharge came to be questioned by complainant-Kewal Krishan Gandotra before this Court, came to be dismissed vide order dated 1.2.2010 passed in Cr. Rev. No.3/2010. Thereafter the State also questioned the discharge order of accused-Mohd. Bashir, came to be dismissed today by a separate order passed in Cr. Rev.45/2009.
It is averred that lodging of FIR, conducting investigation, filing of charge sheet and framing of charge is abuse of process of law.
The allegations against the accused are that they have procured forged documents, i.e., fard intkhab and aks shajra in order to deceive respondent no.2-Kewal Krishan Gandotra and to execute the sale deeds. The investigating officer prima facie came to the conclusion that accused 1, 2 & 3 mentioned in the complaint knowingly that they have no right to execute the sale deeds on the basis of forged documents, dishonestly used the same as genuine documents and committed the offences punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 RPC. Keeping in view the material collected during investigation, I am of the considered view that there are reasonable grounds to presume that the petitioners-accused have committed the offence punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 RPC. Thus the trial court has rightly framed charges against the petitioners.
Accordingly, this petition merits to be dismissed and the same is as such dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months and at the best within one year.
The petitioners are directed to cause appearance before the trial court on 23rd August 2010. Mr. Basotra is also directed to inform the additional Public Prosecutor. Send down the record.
Jammu (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Dated:11.8.2010 Judge (Anil)