HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3223/2018

Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Jeet Ram, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Jat,

R/o B 40/240 Safdarjang, New Delhi.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2.

Rajesh Kumar S/o Balbir Singh, B/c Jat, R/o New Gaov,

(Birbarkatabad), Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar

(Hariyana)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr.J.S.Choudhary Sr.Advocate

through VC with Mr.Pradeep

Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.Mool Singh Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

ORDER

01/02/2022

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the

petitioner Rakesh Kumar for quashing of the F.I.R. No.110/2013,

P.S. Bichhwal, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections

420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C.

The F.I.R. came to be lodged by the respondent No.2

complainant with an allegation that he and Rakesh Kumar had

jointly purchased some khatedari land in the village Deshnok

through a registered sale deed dated 29.2.2009. However, the

petitioner being the co-khatedar developed a fraudulent intention

and fabricated a power of attorney by appending the

complainant’s forged signatures/thumb impressions and then sold

the land on the basis of fabricated power of attorney.

(2 of 2)

[CRLMP-3223/2018]

Shri J.S. Choudhary learned senior counsel assisted by Shri

Pradeep Choudhary representing the petitioner vehemently and

fervently urges that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to

show that the petitioner fabricated any documents. The power of

attorney was genuinely executed by the respondent No.2

complainant and hence, the offences alleged cannot be said to be

made out. He thus urges that the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be

quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently

opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.

Attention of the Court was drawn to the factual report of the

Investigating Officer as per which, the petitioner has not

cooperated in investigation and did not provide the original power

of attorney to the Investigating Officer. The photostat copy of the

power of attorney was got compared through FSL from where, a

report has been received regarding the thumb impressions

appended on the document being forged and the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C.

have been found proved against the petitioner and two co-accused

persons.

In view of the above facts and as the forensic expert has

already given a report regarding the document (power of

attorney) being fabricated, I am of the firm opinion that it is not a

fit case warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned F.I.R.

Hence, the misc. petition lacks merit and is dismissed as

such.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

/tarun goyal/ 2