Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants would submit that the FIR was lodged by the complainant/wife under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC, but the Investigating Officer has enlarged the scope of the case as he has added Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, which has no concern with the contents of the FIR. He further submits that the Investigating Officer exceeded in his authority to investigate the matter, as fabricating the forged documents of the society has no concern with the matrimonial dispute. It is stated that the Investigating Officer had no authority to enlarge the scope, that the applicants have procured the forged documents pertaining to the resignation of the complainant/ respondent no.2 from the Institution/college. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5881, where the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos.10 and 15 held as under:-

11. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent/complainant submits that the applicant did "marpeet" with respondent no.2 and also tortured her for demand of dowry. He further argued that since the applicants procured the forged documents in regard to the resignation of respondent no.2 from the College, thus the Investigating Officer did not commit any illegality in investigating the matter in that regard. He further submits that after lodging of the FIR when the complainant came to know that the applicants have fabricated her resignation from the College, the Investigating Officer has also investigated in this regard.

12. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent that since the applicants have procured the forged documents pertaining to the resignation of the complainant from the College/Soceity, which have been found to be forged, has no substance. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent is misconceived.

13. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 323 and 498-A of IPC, which read as follows:-

21. It is a case where nothing has been alleged in the FIR that the accused persons have procured the forged documents pertaining to the resignation of respondent no.2 - Neetu Kainth. It is the specific case of the complainant that her husband, namely, Paramjit Singh Sagar had obtained her signatures on blank papers. Thus, no prudent person would believe that for the purpose of expelling the complainant from the Institution, the applicants have procured the forged documents. The perusal of the charge-sheet and material brought on record would reveal that none of the ingredients of Sections 323, 498-A, 467, 468, 471, 120- B and 420 of IPC are made out against the applicants, as there is no element of cheating and inducement. In any case, respondent no.2 has been expelled from the Institute, then it is a simple case of civil dispute, which has been given a criminal colour.