The dismissal of an FIR by a High Court under Section 482 CrPC is impermissible when critical evidence is pending, particularly in allegations of fraud and forgery.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant, Sharla Bazliel [Hereinafter referred to as appellant-complainant], being the original complainant and the State of Himachal Pradesh are before us for assailing the judgment and final order dated 8th January, 2024 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla [Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’] in Cr. MMO No. 50 of 2023 whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents- accused under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short ‘CrPC’.] and quashed the proceedings of FIR No. 8/22 dated 26th August, 2022 lodged by the appellant-complainant at Police Station State CID, Shimla for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 [For short ‘ IPC ’].

4. It was inter alia alleged in the FIR that the respondents-accused herein, namely, Baldev Thakur, Daljit Singh and Jienpuri Kamsuon, entered into a criminal conspiracy to grab the property and other articles of the appellant-complainant’s father, Dr. G.B. Bazliel, by way of extortion, cheating, forging documents, fabricating false evidence, fraud and committing theft. The appellant-complainant alleged in the FIR that she is the adopted daughter and legal heir of Dr. G.R. Bazliel. Her family owned ancestral property admeasuring 51.2 bighas in Village Katli, Patwar Circle Dhagog, Mashobra, District Shimla, H.P. The said agricultural land belonged to her grandfather, Dr. I.R. Bazliel, and passed on to her father after the death of her grandfather in the year 1986. She has been in possession of the property since 1980. Her mother passed away in the year 2013, pursuant to which her father developed severe depression associated with other health issues. The appellant-complainant stated that she had been taking care of her father until the year 2016.

5. Around that period, respondent No. 2-Daljit Singh (who had a criminal background), introduced her father to a woman named Jienpuri Kamsuon (respondent No. 3). The appellant-complainant strongly objected to her father’s relationship with respondent No. 3 Jienpuri Kamsuon considering his age and health condition. However, the respondents- accused did not desist and, taking advantage of her father’s weak mental and physical disposition, influenced him to sever all ties with the family, thereby rendering him completely isolated and vulnerable. By practising such fraudulent inducement, her father was persuaded to appoint respondent No. 2-Daljit Singh as a nominee in his bank accounts and, in this manner, the entire family property was transferred to respondent No. 1- Baldev Thakur.

6. The appellant-complainant was residing at Delhi in connection with her employment. Upon coming to know about the illegal design of the respondents-accused to grab the ancestral properties, she called her father on phone and objected to the transfers. She told her father that if he was insisting upon the sale of the properties, at least her own share and the share of her aunts should first be set apart, and only thereafter should the property be sold by following the due legal process. She alleged that on 9th March, 2017, a sum of Rs. 93 lakhs was transferred from her father’s UCO Bank account to the bank account of respondent No. 2-Daljit Singh. The major part of this amount, i.e., nearly Rs. 65 lakhs, comprised the savings of the appellant-complainant’s late m