$tngle Banch @ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) ‘ ”D CR.M.P. NO. OF 2009 S.B. PETITIONERS : 1. Vijay Kishore Goswami, aged about 54 years Son of Shri' Roop kishore @ Naval Kishore Goswami, Occupation Agriculturist, Resident of ViHage and Post Baba Mohatara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). Mahant Shri Shekhar Sharan Deo, Guru Shri Ram Sharan Deo, aged about 18 years, Mahant, Shri Radhe Bihari Temple, Son of Shri Roop Kishore @ Naval Kishore Goswami, Resident of Baba Mohtara, Tahsii Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : The District Magistrate Durg (C.G.). The Station House Officer, Police Station Bemetara, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). Vivekanand Singh, aged about 52 years Son of Shri Yudhishthir Singh, Resident of Vrindavan, at present residing at Jamat Mandir, Jamatpéra; Rajnandgaon (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE “CODE") HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr. M. P. No. 550 of 2009 \ \ PETITIONERS Vijay Kishore Goswami and another X’ ‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS * State of Chhattisgarh and others Post for pronouncement of the order on 2%.8201 0 Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker ‘ Judge 47.8.2010 1 ‘5! ‘ ‘ MVK: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr. M. P. No. 550 of 2009 PETITIONERS Vijay Kishore Goswami and another x _ VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri P. K. C. Tiwari Sr. counsel with Shri Shashi Bhushan, ‘ Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai counsel for respondent No.3. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. O R D E R (23.08.2010) The petmoners have flled this petmon for quashment of the FIR . dated 3.10.2009 lodged by respondent No.3 — Vivekanand Slngh respect of Cnme No 320/2009 under Sections 420 467 468 471 and l 1 120 B IPC reglstered at pollce station Bemetara Dlstnct Durg, CG v l l l l . the facts of the case would be necessary for disposal of this petmon. One a l Ram Saran Deo was the Mahant of various temples situated at Vrindavan ,I (UP), Amarkantak (MP) and different villages of Tehsil Bemetera, District i ‘ Durg, CG who had executed a will (Annexure P—2) on 15.1.2006 in favour .‘ of petitioner No.2 Mahant Shri Sekhar Sharan Deo herein of whom the i petitioner No.1 Vijay Kishore Goswami is the father. lt is said that within i three days of execution of the said will at Vrindavan, said Mahant Ram 1 l Saran Das expired in one of the hospitals situated at Vrindavan (UP). Further undisputed facts are that the will was in respect of various properties of three States i.e. U.P. MP. and C.G. including about 700 I acres of land and also the other properties in the State of Chhattisgarh. Further undisputed facts are that on or about 27.6.2009 one Brij Bihari II I odged an FIR Ex P-5 before police station Vrindavan Mathura (U P) l Vide Crime No 593/2009 English translation of which as furnisahed/y / he petitioners reads as under 2 Before advertlng to the nval contentions of the parties narration of @ l ‘ t un First Information Report (Under Section 154 District: Mathura PS. Vrindavan 27.6409 "Form No 1 of Cnmmal Procedure Code) ) Year 2009 FIR. No.208/09 Dated i i 1. Code: Indian Penal Code Sections: 420, 467, 468, 471, 1208 ofIPC i 2. Code: Seciions.’ 3. Code: Sections: 4. Date ofincident. . 18 01 2006 5. Information received in Poiice Station 27.6.09 at 15.30 hrs 6. Roznamohasanna No. Entry No.27 at 15,30 hrs 7. Type ofinformation: Typed. 8. 73I§ce ofincident.‘ LSeva Kunj 1 KnTin the West 9. Distance Station & Direction from Police 10. Address I 11. if beyond the territoria/ jurisdiction the Police Station, of Name of Rs. Janpad 12 Name: Brijbihari, S/o Parsadi Lal, r/o Chhipi Gali, Brindavan, Mathura ..................................... issue ............................... 13. 14. boate ofbirth/Year National/ty Passpoit No .............................. Place .............................. Date of 15. Occupation ........................................ Department ................................ Post ................................................ 1 6. Particulars of suspected/known/unknown accused Sr. Name j Father's Name Village PS. Janpad 7 Vijay Kishore Goswami '7 Late Kishore Goswami Seva Kunj ‘ Vrindavan r ll—tathura .r ‘2: Smt. Sakun W/o Vijay Kishore -———do-----------do-—-— do-m . __d0_____ q--—do-'—.-- 3. Shekhar s/o Vijay Kishore ~——-do----------- 4. Meenu d/o Vijay Kishore -——.cio—————— —————do-m A...do..... 17. 1 8. Reasons for delay in lodging FIR by the compiainant/intormant. i i . Details of Kidnapped/relatedgroperty 19. Total value of Kidnapped/related property I 20. Merg intimation ivo. (Rwy) L 21. ‘ Details of marks present over the person: D 22. Question 23. Answer 24, Work Done: on the Esis of above information, offence has been registered under abovementioned sections. 25. Post: SSI Shri Vijay Singh 26. i Investigation is started on the direction of Area Officer/ Transferred i to the police station Sign/thumb impression of complainanwnformant (illegible) Signature of In—charge Name: SG. Pandey Post; Sub Inspector Persona/ No, ifany: To, The In-charge Inspector, PS. Vrindavan. Brindavan (Mathura) Sub‘ Regarding grabbing of about 1000 acre of land, residential colony & Dharamshala of Radhe Bihari Murti Mandir on the strength of forged Will, Sir, l, Brijbihari, s/o Late Parsadilai, am resident of Chhipi Street, PS. Brindavan District Mathura (UP). I am follower ofLate Mahant Shri Ram Sharan Dev Radhe-Bihari Idol Temple, Village Baba—Mohtara, PS. Bemetara, District Duro (Chhattisgarh) Who used to visit Vrindavan. Late Mahant Shri Ram Sharan Dev Ji was heart patient and in October, 2005 his by-pass surgery was done in Escorts Hospital, New Delhi, After the operation, Vijay Kishore Goswami, son of Late Roop Kishore Goswami, resident of Sita Kunj, P.S, f i i j i Brindavan, District Mathura has stopped Mahant Ji in his house. One day sudden/y Mahant Jl was admitted in the Ramkrishan Mission Sevashram, Brindavan. When i visited the said hospital on 18.1.2006 to meet him; i came to know that Mahant Ji has expired. After death ceremonies of Mahant Ji were going on and we ail used to go to attend the same. During that period, 3—4 days after In the evening Kishore Goswami his wrfe Shakun son Shekhar & daughter Meetu asked me to Sign on the Will allegedly written by Late Mahant appended my Signature on the said Will treating the same as the last Wish of Mahant Ji Thereafter after about 6 7 months Vijay Kishore Goswami and his aforesaid family members took me to Village Baba-Mohtara, P.S. Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) on the pretext that some religious works of Mahant Ji is to be performed. Thereafter, Vijay Kumar Goswarni took me to Bemetara market and from where he took me to Bemetara Tehsili Office where one clerk was sitting and he took my signature on a blank paper. Mahant Shri Rambali Das met me and scolded saying that Brijbihari you allowed the transfer of 1000 acre of land, residential colony and property at Brindavan, value of which is in crores,, in favour of a fraud person who is habitual of doing such thing. He had shown me all the relevant papers, copies of which are annexed With the application All these things surprised me and l felt that / have committed mistake Therefore it is prayed that offence be registered against the persons at fault and necessary strict action be taken against them urther undisputed facts are that after enquiry on 3.10.2009 another FIR as been lodged by respondent No 3 Viveka Nand Singh In police station Bemetera (C.G.) vide Crime No. 320/2009, Engilsh translation of which as l F h by petitioners ”Form No.1 First information Report {Under Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code) -1. District: Durg P.S. Bemetara Year 2009 F.l.R No.320/09 Dated 3. 10.09 2. 1. Code: Indian Penal Code Sections: 420, 467, 468, 471, 1203 oflPC 2. Code: - Sections: 3. Code: Sections: 4. Other Code & Sections 3. (a) Roznamchasanh a No. (b) Day of incident: Dated: after 18. 1.09 Time: (c) Date on which information received in police station. 3.10.09 at 20.30 hrs Ro.Sa.Kr. 165 4. Types of information: Written / oral 5. Place of incident: Direction & distance from Police Station 6 Kms, East. Place of incident: Village Baba Mohalla, P.S. Bemetara if the place of incident falls within the jurisdiction of other police station, then Police Station Dist. 64 Name of complainant/infor mant Name: Vivekanand Sing/7, resident of Vrindavan Father/Husband/Guardian ’s name: Late Shri RP. Pandey, Age: 58 years Nationality: Indian Passporf No. ————————————— Date of issuance ---------- Place from Where it was issued Occupation: Sen/ice (Sub Inspector) Address: P.S. Bemetara, District Durg Details of Vijay Kishore Goswami. accused Shekhar Sharan Dev, s/o known/unknown/ » Vijay Kishore Goswami, suspect, resident of Baba—Mohtara. ' Explanation by the complainant / information regarding delayed report Details of Kidnapped/relate d property Total value of Kidnapped/relate d property Merg lntimation No. (if any) Description of first information: l am posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station Bemetara. ln compliance of the letter bearing No.Pu.A,/Durg/CC/254910 dated 30.9,09 issued from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Durg to the S.D.O. (P), Bemetara for registration o FIR, the S.D.O. (P), Bemetara has directed me in writing to register the crime. On perusal of the application of the applicant Vivekanand SinhaJ r/o Vrindavan it revealed that one Ramsaran Dev was the owner of total land of 774 acres situated in Villages Baba—mohtara, Chhetapara, Piparbhatta, Khairbhitti, Kusmi and Bhoinabhata. Non-applicant Vijay Kishore Goswarni hatched up a conspiracy and got transferred the said land of Baba Ramsaran Dev in the name of his minor son Shekhar Saran Dev by way of forged Will dated 15.1.06 and after the death of said Ramsaran Dev on 18.1403 obtained possession of the said land. As the alleged offence was found to be committed, offence was registered and matter was taken up for investigation To, The Superintendent of Police, District Durg (QG) Sub: Regarding registration of crime against Vijay Goswami as he fraudulently got transferred the lands of Mahant Ramsaran Dev situated in Villages Baba—mohtara, Chhetapar, Piparbhatta, Khairghitti, Kusmi and Bhoinabhata in favour of his minor son Shekhar Sharan Deo through an unregistered Will dated 15. 1.06 Sir, One Mahant Ram Sharan Deo was the Mahant and care taker of the Radha Bihar Temple, Pawanputra Hanuman Temple, Radha Gaushala Temple at Bara Mohtara, Chhetapar, Dhara, Bhoinabhata and Radha Bihari Temp/e of village Bare Mohtara, Chhetapar, Radhadamodar Temple and other agricultural lands. These properties were allegedly bequeathed by Vijay Goswami in favour of his minor son by virtue of unregistered will dated 15012006 whereas Ram f Sharan died 0n 18.01.2006. In this regard an handwritin expert repon‘s dated 07.06.2007 has been submitted wherein it has been opined that the original signature does not tally with the signature contained in the will. The will date 15.01.2006 shows name of Ramjilal Agrawal son of Bholanath Agrawal, Vrindawan, District Mathura as attestee witness No.1. An affidavit has been shown by witness Ramjilal that his signature shown in the will has been forged and a copy of this is annexed with the report. Affidavit of Ramjilal Agarwal is annexed with the report. On the basis of that forged Will Vijay Goswami the said land of 774 aeres situated in Village Baba~rnahetara, Chhetapara, Dara, Kusmi (Bahra) Bhoinabhata Piparbhatta, Khairbhitti was transferred in the name of his minor son Shekhanfraudulently. Whereas, the same is a forged Will as per report of the expert. Hence action be taken against persons involed. Certified copies of Will dated 15.1.06 and report of handwriting expert dated 7.6.07 may be treated as part and parcel of this report. The aforesaid facts came into light when in the Court at Khairgarh when along with the application for bringing legal heirs of deceased Ramsaran Dev on record, which was probably filed on 13.3.06, the said Wi/l has been filed. After coming to kno about the said Will, some time has been lapsed in obtaining copy of the Will from the court, report of the handwriting expert and affidavit of said Ramjilal Agarwa/ and due to which there is some delay in lodging the report. Documents annexed with the application dated 1.8.09 of the applicant Vivekanand Singh, s/o Yudhisthir Singh, r/o Village Rajpur, Tehsil Sadar, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura (UP) are (1 Will dated 15, 1.06 & certified copy of the report of handwriting expert dated 7.6.07 {2) Copy of the affidavit of Ramjilal Agarwal. Proceedings initiated: Sign/thumb impression of complainant/informant (illegible) Signature of lncharge Name: S.G. Pandey Post: Sub inspector No, if any: COpy, To the Hon’ble Court of learned A.C.J.M,, Bemetara for information,” . This second FIR sought to be quashed in this petition is under investigation and no final report has yet been submitted by the poiice , authorities. lion to the same subject matter FIR was lodged by one Brij Bihari vide‘ rie No. 593/2009 in police station Vrindavan, Mathura (UP) for the? ffences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. However, after: \_. dtaiied enquiry final report (Khatma) under Section 173 (2) of the Code i of Criminal Procedure has been submitted on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and the said report is pending before the Chief Judiciai i i i i i 3. The main contention of the counsei for the petitioners is that in reat Cm o e « k. i . g d w ) il% -g- l I \ } ‘ Magistrate, Mathura, for its consideration. According to the counsel for the petitioners for one offence there cannot be two FiRs and in view of i the dictum of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.T. Antony v. State of 1 Kerala and others reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2571, the second FIR i lodged at Bemetera is liable to be quashed. 4 . There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that for the same incident there cannot be two FlRs. However, the case in hand is entirely different on facts from that of any other criminal case where two FlRs are i there in relation to the offence of murder or marpeet. in the present case, l admittedly the properties of various temples are situated in three States i and late Ram Sharan Deo had executed the will Annexure P-2 in favour of petitioner No. 2. lt appears from the record that first FIR lodged atv Vrindavan (UP)}by Brij Bihari was entirely different from that of the second one which has been lodged at Bemetera police station by respondent: No.3 Viveka Nand Singh. The lodger of the first FIR has stated that his signatures were obtained on the will in question as one of the attesting witnesses subsequent to its execution after the death of Ram Sharan Deo. lt appears from the said FIR that the alleged will was already‘ prepared showing the signature of the executant of the same and the ? signature of Shri Brij Bihari was obtained by the petitioner No.1 and his l amily members. It is also reflected that later on the petitioner No.1 had 1‘ further obtained the signature of this attesting witness on a blank paper and thereafter about 1000 acres of agricultural and residential land worth crores of rupees has been transferred in the name of the petitioners to whom the lodger of the FIR has termed as Bhoo Mafia. It appears that i certain documents were shown in relation to the transfer of the landand l while submitting the documents along with the FIR said Brij Bihari had ; requested for suitable action against the culprits after registering the case against them. lf the tenor of the second FIR is taken into consideration, the same specifically questions the will Annexure P—2 and calls for an enquiry‘ regarding the same. In the second FIR it has been categorically pointed a . out by its lodger i.e. respondent No.3 herein as to in what manner the y, respondent No.1 had grabbed the property of various temples situated in j the State of Chhattisgarh on the basis of a forged will in favour of: 'l l l i l l f petitioner No.2. Second FIR clearly discioses the fact that lodger of the same has prima facie shown the signatures of the executant on the will nd other documents. It is categorically stated that signature of one Ramji Lal has been shown as attesting witness whereas he has given an] ’ ‘ affidavit clearly stating that he had not signed any such document and 5 l that his signatures are forged. Along with the second FIR, its lodger has l ‘ also given all the related documents including the report of the handi ‘ writing expert Dr. Sunanda Denge clearly indicating that signatures of the l executant of the said will are not tallying with the signatures of the other l documents. Thus it is apparent that both the FlRs cannot be called as - one and the same and that for one transaction because in the first FIR as per its lodger he was cheated and his signatures were obtained on the will as an attesting witness subsequent to the death of Ram Sharan Deo nd therefore the transaction was also questioned by him whereas the i second FIR is very specific pertaining to the signatures of the executant o i fthe will and that of other attesting witness Ramji Lal. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the mode of evidence and i investigation in both the cases may be different but ultimately the offence 1 s in relation to the same incident regarding execution of will and i i herefore, there cannot be two FlRs for the same. According to the ;i counsel for the petitioners for the same cause of action there cannot be wo FlRs and once the entire investigation has been done by Vrindavan Police and Final Report has been submitted, only course available to the espondents 1 and 2 is to forward the second FIR and the related: documents to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vrindavan which i ould be considered by the said Court along with the Final Reporti submitted by the Vrindavan police. He submits that as contents of both the FlRs are substantially the same and lodger of the second FIR was also of Uttar Pradesh as mentioned in the second FIR itself, there was no ,- occasion for the Chhattisgarh police to investigate the matter. Lodger of g ‘ ‘ the first FIR i.e. Brij Bihari was examined as attesting witness of the will Annexure P—2 before the Tehsildar, Bemetera and his statement is: Annexure P-3. After considering the evidence of the parties the Tehsildar is x IL as aiready passed the order for mutation (Annexure P—4) and therefore ‘ the will of late Ram Saran Deo cannot be doubted before the policeé, i a a t i t r w \ x h ; i ‘ WE???” authorities in the State of Chhattisgarh. He placed reliance on tei decision of the Orissa High Court in the matter of Bubana Nayak v. State i of Orissa reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 2526, decision of Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Niranjan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand and i others reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 301 and on the decision of Patna High \i Court in the matter of Raju Shah v. State of Bihar and others reported ‘ in 2006 (44)AIC 773. 6. On the other hand counsei for the respondents/State submits that ; both the FIR are substantially different and iodger of the first FIR namely T Brij Bihari has sought for an enquiry on a different line stating that his l‘ signatures were obtained on the alleged will by playing fraud whereas in l k the second FIR the validity of the will has been questioned saying that l same is fabricated and forged document as the attesting witness Ramji ‘- Lal has not signed the same. lt is argued that in respect of signature of ’1' l Ram Sharan Deo a report was given by‘the hand writing expert Dr. Sunanda Denge on 7.6.2007 and based on that the second FIR was i lodged and during enquiry it was revealed by the police authorities that the said signature of Ram Sharan Deo was forged. Ramji Lal has given l an affidavit that he has not made any signature on the will as an attesting i witness. 7. lt is argued by the counsel for the respondents that attestingt witness Ramji Lal has given an affidavit that his signatures on the will ; have been forged by someone and that he has not signed any such will. lt 1 ‘ i v vis argued that in respect of signature of executant of will namely Ram / Sharan Deo a report has already been submitted by hand writing expertrl y Dr. Sundanda Denge on 7.6.2007 and based on that second FIR was registered and during enquiry it was revealed by the police authorities that t signature of M'ahant Ram Sharan Deo is forged on the will and to that ‘. it extent opinion of the State Examiner of questioned documents namely y N.K. Sikkewal dated 16.9.2009 is on record. It is argued that second FIR ‘ r is very categorical and specifically points out that the will of Mahant Ram Sharan Deo is forged and the related documents have also been given by the lodger of the FIR whereas the first FIR which was lodged by one Brij i \ \ ‘> \\ Bihari was In respect of the transaction made on the ba5is of forged Will It ‘ ‘\\ is argued that the second FIR is a belated one and its ver5ion isx \ h i ‘ H4.q/ somewhat different from the first one. It is argued that most of the land is 1 situated in the State of Chhattisgah and if the police makes an enquiry i about the validity of the wiii and wants to bring out the truth, no objection l should be raised by the petitioners. He submits that on the basis of forged l will in respect of the property situated in the State of Chhattisgarh if a i detailed enquiry is made in the State of Chhattisgarh itself, no prejudice is 1 going to the caused to the petitioners. It is argued that before the police of 1 Vrindavan police station (U.P) relevant material was not supplied and that I is why the final report has been submitted by the police whereas in the State of Chhattisgarh all the relevant documents have been supplied by the complainant/respondent No.3 Viveka Nand Singh, therefore, the ‘ ' further enquiry cannot be quashed. He submits that if such an enquiry is ‘ ‘ s 7i, ' quashed, then the illegal act of the petitioners would never be curbed and l the truth will not see the light of the day. He placed reliance on thej decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of‘Kari Choudhary v. Mst. ‘ ita Devi and others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 714, in the matter oft Bank of Rajsthan v. Keshav Bangur and another reported in (2007) 13 l SCC 145, in the matter of Nirmal Singh Kahlon v‘ State of Punjab and ‘ V others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 441 and in the matter of Ramlal Narang l l i i . y. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1979 (2) SCC 322. j ‘ ‘ l l 8. This Court is not deciding the legality or validity of the will Annexure i P—2 nor does it wish to pass any comment on the report of the hand i writing expert Dr. Sundnda Denge submitted by respondent No.3 or the 1 report submitted by the State Examiner of the questioned documents, l! Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur but it appears that a fair andi impartial inquiry is needed by the police authorities