[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Baleshwar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:16709 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3677 of 2023
Baleshwar Prasad, Aged about 45 years, son of Late Paras Nath Sao,
Resident of Darukharika, Post Office -Daru, Police Station -Daru,
District -Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, at present residing at New
Colony, Babugaon, P.O. -Korrah, P.S. -Korrah, District -
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Kanchan Kumari, Wife of Deepak Kumar Sahu, Resident of
Village -Jabra, P.S. -Korrah, P.O. -Korrah, District -Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand.
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate
: Mr. Prince Pandey, Advocate
…..
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. of
Korrah P.S. Case No. 44 of 2022 registered involving the offences
punishable under Section 341, 323, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 504 of the
1
Cr.M.P. No.3677 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16709 )Indian Penal Code as well as quashing the order taking
cognizance dated 28.10.2022, passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby and where under
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has
taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 341,
323, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant-opposite party
no.2 filed Complaint Case No. 333 of 2022 in the Court of learned
A.C.J.M., Hazaribagh alleging therein that the petitioner and the
complainant jointly purchased a land from the original owner by a
registered sale deed and came in joint possession thereof. There
was a partition in which each of the purchasers got 04 decimals of
land each out of the purchased land. The petitioner being an L.I.C.
agent fraudulently and by way of cheating obtained Identity
documents of the complainant such as Aadhar Card, PAN Card
and photocopies of other documents but did not return the same
by taking the plea that the same has been lost; while in fact, the
same was in his possession, which the petitioner took in the
pretext of, getting issued a L.I.C. Policy. The petitioner prepared a
forged agreement allegedly executed by the complainant dated
27.01.2022; in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons by
using the photographs and the copy of other Identity documents
of the complainant. The purported signature of the complainant in
the complaint is markedly different from the admitted signature
2
Cr.M.P. No.3677 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16709 )of the complainant. The complaint filed by the complainant was
referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., basing upon which
Korrah P.S. Case No. 44 of 2022 was registered and police took up
investigation of the case and during the course of investigation,
police obtained the admitted signature of the complainant from
the bank. The admitted signature of the complainant did not
match with the signature appearing on the alleged forged
agreement created by the petitioner; to which the petitioner claims
to be genuine and thus finding the allegation against the
petitioner to be true, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner
for having committed the offences punishable under Section
341/323/420/467/468/471/504 of the Indian Penal Code. On the
basis of the same, the learned A.C.J.M., Hazaribagh took
cognizance of the said offences in respect of which charge sheet
was submitted.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying
upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of R. Nagender Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and Another,
reported in [2023] ACR 165, that in para -12 thereof, it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in that case,
since it is the specific case of the original complainant that at no
point of time he has executed the disputed sale deed and his
signature on the disputed sale deed has been forged, so the first
thing, the police should have done was to obtain the specimen
handwriting of the complainant so as to be compared with the
3
Cr.M.P. No.3677 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16709 )disputed signature on the sale deed through a handwriting expert
and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
this case, as police has not obtained the opinion of any
handwriting expert and still submitted charge sheet by observing
that the signature of the complainant appearing on the alleged
forged agreement do not tally with her admitted signature which
is available with the bank. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made against the
petitioner are false and the present case is a counter blast to
Complaint Case No. 2274 of 2020. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as
prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous
petition. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 draws
the attention of this Court to page no.34 of the brief, which is the
signature of the complainant appearing on the complaint and
page no.13 of the supplementary affidavit dated 21.06.2024 and
submits that by examination with naked eyes, it is crystal clear,
that there is a stark difference between the admitted signature of
the complainant and the alleged signature of the complainant
appearing on the alleged forged document created by the
petitioner. Hence, merely because the I.O. of the case has not
obtained the opinion of a handwriting expert, the entire criminal
4
Cr.M.P. No.3677 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16709 )proceeding ought not to be quashed. In support of their
contention, the learned Spl. P.P. relies upon the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.N. Rishbud &
Another Vs. Sate of Delhi, reported in (1954) 2 SCC 934, in para –
13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled
principle of law that an invalid investigation do not nullify the
cognizance or the trial based on that. Hence, it is submitted that
this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that in para-14 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of R. Nagender Yadav Vs.
State of Telangana and Another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has categorically referred to the settled principle of
law that perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground either to
quash the criminal proceedings or to acquit the accused. It is also
a settled principle of law that the handwriting expert’s opinion is
not a conclusive proof in legal proceedings. It is considered as an
opinion evidence and should be viewed with caution.
7. This Court after going through the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of R. Nagender Yadav Vs.
State of Telangana and Another (supra), is of the opinion that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law therein to
the effect that, if during the investigation of the case, a disputed
5
Cr.M.P. No.3677 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16709 )signature is not referred to the handwriting expert for opinion, the
entire criminal is to be quashed, as contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has created a
false document purported to be an agreement executed by the
complainant which the complainant denies. Police during the
investigation of the case got compared the purported signature of
the complainant appearing on the alleged forged document with
her admitted signature and found the same to be different. Under
such circumstances, the facts of this case being entirely different
from the facts of R. Nagender Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and
Another (supra), where there was also a civil suit between the
parties and as it is not even the contention of the petitioner that a
cloak of criminal case is being given to a purely civil dispute, in
this case, as it was in the case of R. Nagender Yadav Vs. State of
Telangana and Another (supra), this Court is of the considered
view that the ratio of the said Judgment is not applicable to the
facts of this case and this is not a fit case where the the F.I.R. of
Korrah P.S. Case No. 44 of 2022 including the order taking
cognizance dated 28.10.2022, passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, be quashed and set aside .
In exercise of the power of this court under section 528 of the
BNSS.
6
Cr.M.P. No.3677 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:16709 )
9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 12th June, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
7
Cr.M.P. No.3677 of 2023
[ad_2]
Source link