SPS Rathore Vs. State (CBI)
In the Court of Sh. Gurbir Singh,
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh .
Computer ID No. 36014R0010862010.
Criminal Appeal No.17 of 21.1.2010
Date of Decision : 25.5.2010.
S.P.S. Rathore, aged: 68 years, son of Late Sh. K.S. Rathore, resident of House No.469, Sector 6, Panchkula……Appellant.
State ( C.B.I.)….Respondent.
Appeal under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. against the order/judgment order dated 22.12.2009 passed by Sh. Jasbir Singh Sidhu, Chief
Judicial Magistrate, UT,Chandigarh.
Present : Appellant on bail in the connected case with counsel Ms. Abha Rathore.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by Sh. Jasbir Singh, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh whereby application of the appellant filed under Sectio340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2 Record is received.
3 Brief facts mentioned in the application are that CBI had filed the charge sheet against the applicant for offence under Section 354 IPC and cognizance of the offence was taken. The appellant had filed complaint o 18.8.1990 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala under Section 50IPC against Mrs. Madhu Parkash, her husband, her daughter, her relative etc that they in connivance with media people published defamatory news items against him with regard to alleged incident of 12.8.1990. After recording the preliminary evidence the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class summoned the accused vide order dated 5.1.1991. As a counter blast of the said complaint Mrs. Madhu Parkash filed a criminal Miscellaneous petition No.1694 of 1997 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on 26.11.1997, accompanied by her affidavit dated 26.11.1997. In the writ petition as well as in the affidavit, there was not a single word that Ms. Ruchika had committed suicide much less any allegation in that respect having been made against the applicant. Two annexures P7 and P8 which are representations for lodging FIR to SSP, Panchkula and SHO, Sector 6, Panchkula were fabricated. Those documents have been denied by the addressees thereof. Since Mrs. Madhu Parkash wanted to harass, humiliate the applicant further so she forged documents in custody of the Court i.e. copy of the miscellaneous writ petition No.1694 of 1997 dated 26.11.1997 by putting words in para No.3 thereof which are as under-
SPS Rathore Vs. State (CBI) “It is relevant to state that respondent No.4 made the life of Ruchika so miserable that she committed suicide.”
4 The above said words do not exist in the petition filed in the Hon’ble High Court. The copy of said petition is on the main file of
the Court as D6. The above said forgery is visible even with the naked eye. The said forgery came to the knowledge of the applicant
when certified copy of the Criminal Miscellaneous petition No.1694 of 1997 was obtained from the High Court. Mrs. Madhu Parkash deliberately and purposely forged the said documents. Thereafter, she moved an application against the applicant on 8.10.2001 for adding the offence under Section 306 of IPC and for committing the case to the Court of Sessions. She succeeded in obtaining the favourable order in her favour and against the applicant on the basis of said forgery committed in the judicial record. She gave a false and fabricated document D6 contending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that she will thereby cause the applicant to be convicted for an offence punishable for a term exceeding upto 10 years. She has thus become liable for the offence under Section 195 of the IPC. Since Mrs. Madhu Parkash without lawful authority, dishonestly and fraudulently altered D6 so she has committed offence under Section 195,109,465,466,469 and 471 of IPC. Mrs. Madhu Parkash committed the said forgery in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by her husband Anand Parkash, her daughter Reemu, her relation Dr. Naresh Mittal and Sh. Subash Chand Girotra, father of Ruchika. So, they all committed an offence under Section 120-B IPC. Mrs. Madhu Parkash, Sh, Anand Parkash, Reemu, Naresh Mittal and Sh. Subhash Chand Girotra actively instigated and/or intentionally aided and/or engaged in conspiracy to commit the offence under Section 195 IPC. The said persons are also guilty of offence of abetement under Section 109
IPC. So, they all be prosecuted under Section 195,109,465,466,469,471 and 120-B IPC and be suitably punished, along with any other party
found guilty of the above offences may also be suitably punished.
5 The learned trial Court issued notice of the application to Mrs. Madhu Parkash. She filed the reply. Vide order dated 3.4.2003 it was held that Mrs. Madhu Parkash cannot join proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In order to prove the allegations the applicant himself stepped into the witness box as PW.1 and also examined Sh. Arun Kumar, Assistant Ahlmad in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as
PW.2. The applicant closed the evidence.
6 After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned CJM, Chandigarh dismissed the said application. Aggrieved with the said order this appeal is filed.
7 I have heard the submissions of counsel for the appellant and have gone through the file.
8 Counsel for the appellant has argued that it was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court that forgery was committed in respect of five documents. First document is D6 which was attached with the challan which is a copy of criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1694
of 1997 dated 26.11.1997, following words were written with the ink pen :
“It is relevant to state that respondent No.4 made the life of Ruchika so miserable that she committed suicide.”
9 The certified copy of the same was obtained from the Hon’ble High Court. Same is Ex.P1. Said words are not on the original record. The document Ex.PW2/F and document Ex.PW2/G attached with the D6 are forged documents. These are the representations allegedly made by Mrs. Madhu Parkash to the SSP and SHO, Panchkula. Since the appellant produced SP, Panchkula Sh. C.S. Rao who proved his report Ex.PW12/A wherein it is stated that after checking the record of the SP office no such representation was found in the office of the SP. The document Ex.PW2/D ( Ex.P4 in the original file) which was exhibited by the prosecution contains more than 30 signatures on the backside of page 5 of memorandum which were pasted by Mrs. Madhu Parkash PW.1 and Sh. Anand Parkash PW.2. During the pendency of trial the document expert appeared as DW.10 and proved his report Ex.DW10/1 wherein he clearly held that signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 written as Ruchika
are different. The signatures of Ruchika on Ex.P1 are proved by Mrs. Madhu Parkash, Sh. Anand Parkash and their daughter Reemu and those
on Ex.P3 were proved by her father Sh. S.C. Girotra. Said signatures on Ex.P1 were forged by Mrs. Madhu Parkash, Sh. Anand Parkash and Ms.
Reemu in connivance with each other. The document expert DW.10 also proved his report wherein, he held that Ex.P2 was tampered with by
cutting lower edge of the page.
10 It is argued that the learned trial Court wrongly noted that D6 is a photo copy and handwriting of the pen was also a photo copy. This is incorrect since the handwriting of the pen is not a photo copy. The ld trial Court also wrongly held because it is certified copy and the lines are not added afterwards and if it was so then those lines cannot be photocopy and then those should be in the handwriting of pen. The said finding of learned trial Court is incorrect because above said lines on D6 are handwritten with pen. The learned trial Court also wrongly held that there could be force in the contention of the applicant if the seal of the Hon’ble High Court and signatures of the Superintendent were also tampered. It was pointed out and shown to the learned Trial Court that signatures of Superintendent were also different on the page whereas there is interpolation. The learned trial Court failed to compare D6 with certified copy Ex.P1 which was duly proved by PW.1 where such lines are not existing. Learned trial Court also failed to notice that in para-7 of the reply filed by Mrs. Madhu Parkash it was admitted that there was forgery but she was not responsible for the same. The appellant examined Sh. C.S. Rao DW.2/A as a witness in the main case who prove his report and deposed that no such representation was available in the office of SP, Panchkula. So, forgery of documents Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G were wrongly rejected on the ground that there was no evidence on record to establish the refusal of receipt by addressee. Mrs. Madhu Parkash and Sh. Anand Parkash procured more than 30 signatures and pasted them on the back of document Ex.PW2/B. The findings of the learned Court is incorrect that signatures of some less persons does not make the document forged and a document is forged only if signatures are forged. The
arguments regarding forgery of the signatures on Ex.P1 of the main file has not been examined by the Court. Similarly, the arguments regarding the tampering of the document Ex.P2 on the main file has also not been examined by the Court. Examination of the forgeries by the complainant
is very material for decision of the main case itself because it will expose the conduct of complainant and her husband who are responsible
for implicating the appellant in the false case under Section 354 IPC. It is prayed that appeal be allowed and order dated 22.12.2009 be set
11 After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that appellant himself stepped into the witness box as PW.1. He examined Arun Kumar, Asstt. Ahlmad PW.2 who produced the record of the case CBI Vs. SPS Rathore. He produced copy of the application filed by Smt. Madhu Parkash Ex.PW2/A, copy of the letter written by SP Panchkula to the Joint Director CBI, Chandigarh Ex.PW2/B alongwith copy of the memorandum Ex.PW2/B1 which was exhibited as Ex.P1 in the main case. Copy of the letter given to SHO
Panchkula Ex.PW2/C with complaint, copy of memorandum Ex.PW2/D, copy of the civil writ petition Ex.PW2/E which is D6 in the main file.
He also proved copy of letters Ex.PW2/F and PW2/G which were D6/43 to D6/45 and D6/46 to D6/48 respectively in the main file.
The appellant as PW.1 produced copy of writ Mark-A and same was received by him from the counsel for Smt. Madhu Parkash. He also proved
the attested copy of the writ Ex.P1. Ex.PW2/B-1 is the copy of memorandum given to Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Govt. of
Haryana, Chandigarh. As per version of the appellant said document is proved as Ex.P1 in the main case. Ex.PW2/C is copy of letter given
to the SHO Panchkula alongwith copy of memorandum Ex.PW2/D. The said documents have been exhibited as Ex.P3 and P4 in the main
file. Ex.PW2/B1 was given to separate authority and Ex.PW2/C was given to separate authority. The text of both the documents were
same but same were given to different authorities. The learned trial court has rightly held that the document is forged only if signatures are forged. If it bears signatures of less person then it does not become forged document. It is well known that memorandums are given by the people to the functionaries of the government for putting their demands. Basically, memorandums are equivalent to filing
applications/complaints. The bald statement of the appellant that document Ex.PW2/B1 which is Ex.P1 in the main file is a forged document since signatures of Ruchika on the said document are forged. The applicant was not present at the time of putting the signatures by the
persons on the said document. The said document pertain to molestation of Ruchika, a minor girl at the hands of appellant and same bear signatures of many persons. So signatures of Ruchika on said documents cannot be termed as forged. Although appellant has examined a document expert in the main file, a copy of the report of the documents expert is also placed on this file but science of handwriting is rudimentary science so in the absence of any direct evidence it cannot be held that signatures of Ruchika on Ex.P1 in the main file,
copy of the which in this case is Ex.PW2/B-1, are forged. So, Ex.PW2/B-1 and Ex.PW2/D cannot be termed as forged documents. In the original
application, the applicant set up a case with regard to forgery of documents that D6 copy of which is Ex.PW2/E and letters copies of which
are Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G are forged. There is no mention of documents copy of which are Ex.PW2/B-1 and Ex.PW2/D in the application but
applicant while stepping into the witness box made the said statement. Since it was not pleaded in the application itself so version of
the applicant with regard to documents copy of which are Ex.PW2/B-1 and Ex.PW2/D is rightly rejected. Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G are the copies of the letters sent by Mrs. Madhu Parkash t SSP, Panchkula. The contention of the appellant is rightly considered by learned trial court.
Learned trial court has rightly held that if document is not received by the addressees then it cannot be said that it is a forged document.
Since said documents were sent to the public office and the working of the public offices is well known in India. So if a document is not
entered into receipt register by a clerk then it cannot be said that it was not sent to the office. So document Ex.PW2/E and PW2/F are not proved to be forged documents. The document D6 was placed with the challan. It is certified copy of the criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1694 of 1997. In the end of para No.3, following lines were written in hand:
“It is relevant to state that respondent No.4 made the life of Ruchika so miserable that she committed suicide.”
12 The appellant has proved certified copy obtained from Hon’ble High Court Ex.P1 on 10.4.2003 where said lines are not written. The
para No. 5 of the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C is as under :
“That since Madhu Parkash wanted to harass, humiliate and black mail the applicant further, therefore, she forged documents in the custody of the court i.e. the copy of the Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1694 of 1997 dated: 26.11.1997. In para No.3 of this Cr.Misc. Petition following words were added by hand:
“It is relevant to state here that respondent No.4 made the life of Ruchika so miserable that she committed suicide.”
These words do not exist in the Cr.M. Petition NO. 1694 of 1997 or the affidavit of Madhu Parkash filed in the Hon’ble High Court. Copy of the said petition is already on the file of the Hon’ble High Court as D-6. From a bare perusal of the said document D-6, the said forgery is visible even with naked eyes (This forgery came to the knowledge of the applicant when certified copy of the Cr.M. Petition No. 1694 of 1997
was obtained from the High Court.)”
13 From the above pleadings of the appellant, it is the case of the appellant that Smt. Madhu Parkash forged document in custody of the court. The appellant as PW.1 did not make the statement that Smt. Madhu Parkash forged document in custody of the court. He made the statement that D6 was in the custody of the court. Forgery was committed in the said document. He did not make statement in the court that forgery was committed by Mrs. Madhu Parkash. Learned trial court has also held that the certified copy was issued by Superintendent, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. No tampering of the seal of the Hon’ble High Court or the signatures of Superintendent appears on record. No witness from the Hon’ble High Court is examined to prove that signatures of the Superintendent on the said document were forged and seal of Hon’ble High Court was fake. There is no sufficient evidence that any forgery was committed in the custody of court by Mrs. Madhu Parkash with document D6 in the main file copy of which is Ex.PW2/E. It is neither pleaded nor PW.1 made the statement that document Ex.P2 in the original file was tampered with by cutting the lower edge of the page. In the memorandum of appeal it is written that document expert DW.10 also proved his report wherein, it was held that Ex.P2 was tampered with by cutting the lower edge of the page. Since this point is raised first time in the appeal so this point of the appellant cannot be taken into consideration.
14 In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is without merit and same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the judgment be placed on the learned trial court record and the same be returned. This file be consigned to the record room.
Announced : ( Gurbir Singh )
25.5.2010. Addl. Sessions Judge,
SPS Rathore Vs. State (CBI)