Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Savita Vasesi vs Ram Kumar Vasesi on 23 September, 2024
-1-
CRM-M-41704-2018 and another connected case
269 (2 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 23.09.2024
(1)
CRM-M-41704-2018
Savita Vasesi .... Petitioner
Vs.
Ram Kumar Vasesi .... Respondent
(2)
CRM-M-33091-2019
Shiv Kumar Vasesi .... Petitioner
Vs.
Ram Kumar Vasesi .... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in both cases.
Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate
for the respondent in both cases.
****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
Petitioners Savita Vasesi and Shiv Kumar Vasesi have filed
separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Criminal
Complaint No. 4285 dated 03.09.2015 titled "Ram Kumar Vasesi Vs. Shiv
Kumar Vasesi and Ors." under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC,
pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh
(Annexure P-6 in both cases) alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising
CRM-M-41704-2018 and another connected case
therefrom including order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-10 in both cases)
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, summoning
both petitioners to face trial under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with
Section 120-B of IPC. Both these petitions are taken up together for
disposal, having been arisen out of common complaint (Annexure P-6) and
common summoning order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-10).
2. As per the facts stated in complaint Annexure P-6, Ram Kumar
Vasesi filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking direction
to register FIR against accused namely Shiv Kumar Vasesi (brother), Savita
Vasesi (wife of accused no.1), D.K. Jain and Jasbir Bakshi (marginal
witnesses of Will in dispute dated 07.12.2013). It is alleged that Dr.
Chaman Lal Vasesi, father of complainant was owner of House No. 563,
Sector 16-D, Chandigarh, who died intestate on 17.05.2003 at Chandigarh.
He left behind two sons namely Ram Kumar Vasesi and Shiv Kumar Vasesi
and a daughter namely Rama Thapar. Complainant Ram Kumar Vasesi and
his sister had filed a civil suit seeking partition of aforesaid house against
Shiv Kumar Vasesi, claiming 1/3rd share each. In the said litigation,
accused No. 1 and his Power of Attorney Holder accused No. 2 raised the
plea that their father Dr. Chaman Lal Vasesi had executed an unregistered
Will dated 07.12.2013. Said Will is alleged to be a forged and fabricated
document prepared by accused No.1 Shiv Kumar Vasesi and accused No. 2
Smt. Savita Vasesi in connivance with attesting witnesses accused No. 3
D.K. Jain and accused No. 4 Smt. Jasbir Bakshi. In civil suit decided on
27.11.2014, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh came to the
CRM-M-41704-2018 and another connected case
conclusion that Will produced by Shiv Kumar Vasesi was a forged and
fabricated document. Complaint was filed before Superintendent of Police,
U.T. Chandigarh. However, police did not take any action and ultimately,
complaint was filed. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that civil suit
filed by Ram Kumar Vasesi and other was contested by Shiv Kumar Vasesi
and was ultimately decided vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2014.
Copy of plaint in suit for partition bearing Civil Suit No. 4132 dated
03.08.2005 is Annexure P-1. Written statement filed by defendant Shiv
Kumar Vasesi (petitioner in CRM-M-33091-2019) in that case, including
amended written statement is annexed as Annexures P-2 and P-3
respectively. Will dated 07.12.2013 is Annexure P-4. Copy of judgment
dated 27.11.2014 is Annexure P-5, vide which suit filed by plaintiffs (Ram
Kumar Vasesi and Rama Thapar) seeking 1/3rd share each in the property
was decreed by passing a preliminary decree. It is argued that an appeal
was preferred against aforesaid judgment and decree, which was dismissed
on 16.05.2018 and at present RSA is pending. Therefore, stand taken by
complainant that Will dated 07.12.2013 is a forged and fabricated
document is not justified, as RSA is still pending for adjudication.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners further raised the issue that
allegations and role of petitioners in commission of alleged offence were
not rightly considered by trial Court. It is argued that Savita Vasesi
(petitioner in CRM-M-41704-2018) had no role to play in aforesaid civil
suit nor she is scribe or witness to the Will in dispute. Without proper
appreciation of facts, Savita Vasesi has been wrongly summoned by
CRM-M-41704-2018 and another connected case
passing impugned order dated 16.09.2016, Annexure P-10. Learned
counsel for petitioners also placed on record statements of witnesses
recorded before learned Magistrate i.e. Devender Prasad, Forensic
Document Expert CW-1 along with his affidavit as Annexure P-8 and
statement of Ram Kumar Vasesi CW-3 as Annexure P-9. No specific role is
attributed to Savita Vasesi. Therefore, complaint filed against her and
aforesaid summoning order are liable to be quashed.
Regarding Shiv Kumar Vasesi, it is further pointed out that
matter in controversy is civil in nature and in order to harass the petitioners,
it has been given criminal angle. Petitioners have not cheated the
complainant nor any fake document was prepared or used by petitioners.
Therefore, petition filed on behalf of Shiv Kumar Vasesi for quashing of
complaint as well as aforementioned summoning order be allowed as
prayed for.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent
argued that summoning order dated 16.09.2016, Annexure P-10 does not
require any interference. There are specific and serious allegations against
all accused including the present petitioners. All accused, in connivance
with each other, prepared a forged and fabricated Will dated 07.12.2013,
which was used in civil suit filed by Ram Kumar Vasesi and other seeking
partition of house, left behind by their father Dr. Chaman Lal Vasesi. There
are two consistent judgments passed by Civil Courts holding said Will
dated 07.12.2013 as forged and fabricated document. Therefore,
considering the allegations and the manner in which said fake Will has
CRM-M-41704-2018 and another connected case
been prepared by all accused in connivance with each other, both petitions
filed by Savita Vasesi and Shiv Kumar Vasesi are liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the
record carefully. It is an admitted fact that House No. 563, Sector 16-D,
Chandigarh was owned by Dr. Chaman Lal Vasesi, father of complainant
Ram Kumar Vasesi (respondent in both petitions) and accused No. 1 Shiv
Kumar Vasesi (petitioner in CRM-M-33091-2019), who died on
17.05.2003. Dr. Chaman Lal Vasesi left behind two sons and a daughter,
out of which Ram Kumar Vasesi and Rama Thapar filed suit for partition of
aforesaid house, which was contested by petitioner Shiv Kumar Vasesi.
Learned counsel for petitioners in both petitions have placed on record
copy of plaint in Civil Suit No. 4132 dated 03.08.2005, in the suit for
partition titled "Ram Kumar Vasesi and Another Vs. Shiv Kumar" as
Annexure P-1. Written statement and amended written statement filed by
petitioner/defendant Shiv Kumar Vasesi are Annexures P-2 and P-3
respectively and Will in dispute is Annexure P-4. Suit filed by plaintiffs
was decreed by passing a preliminary decree for partition, holding that
plaintiffs (Ram Kumar Vasesi and Rama Thapar) and defendant (Shiv
Kumar Vasesi) each have 1/3rd share in aforesaid property, whereas stand
taken by petitioner Shiv Kumar Vasesi on the basis of unregistered Will
dated 07.12.2013 was declined by holding that said Will was forged and
fabricated. Copy of judgment dated 27.11.2014 is Annexure P-5. During
the course of arguments, it was alleged that appeal preferred by petitioner
Shiv Kumar Vasesi was dismissed and RSA is pending. As a result of
CRM-M-41704-2018 and another connected case
finding given by the Civil Court, Ram Kumar Vasesi filed complaint
against Shiv Kumar Vasesi and others, which is Annexure P-6. Copy of
order dated 15.09.2015 is Annexure P-7 vide which complainant was called
upon to lead preliminary evidence. Statement complainant Ram Kumar
Vasesi is Annexure P-9 and statement of handwriting expert as CW1 is
Annexure P-8. On the basis of evidence, trial Court passed impugned order
dated 16.09.2016, Annexure P-10 vide which all accused were summoned
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC for 19.11.2016.
6. Firstly, I will deal with petition filed by petitioner Savita Vasesi
in CRM-M-41704-2018 vide which she has been summoned vide
summoning order dated 16.09.2016, Annexure P-10. Perusal of Will in
dispute (Annexure P-4) indicates that Savita Vasesi is neither scribe nor
marginal witness of Will in dispute. She was not party to civil litigation.
Except alleged conspiracy, no specific role is attributed to her. There is
nothing on record that she played any active role pertaining to unregistered
Will dated 07.12.2013. Even in the statement of Ram Kumar Vasesi as CW-
3 (Annexure P-9), no specific role is attributed to her. Therefore,
considering the aforesaid factual position, learned trial Court while passing
summoning order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-10) did not consider
aforesaid facts. Consequently, summoning order dated 16.09.2016
(Annexure P-10) qua Savita Vasesi is not justified. Accordingly, petition
bearing CRM-M-41704-2018 filed by petitioner Savita Vasesi is accepted
and complaint filed against her (Annexure P-6) along with summoning
order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-10) stands quashed.
CRM-M-41704-2018 and another connected case
7. Petitioner Shiv Kumar Vasesi in CRM-M-33091-2019 also filed
petition for quashing of aforesaid complaint as well as summoning order.
He is one of the beneficiary of unregistered Will dated 07.12.2013. He has
relied upon this Will while contesting civil suit seeking partition of
aforesaid property. As per record, there is finding of Civil Court holding
said Will as forged and fabricated document and as per arguments
advanced by learned counsel for parties, appeal preferred by petitioner Shiv
Kumar Vasesi was also dismissed, whereas RSA is still pending.
Summoning order dated 16.09.2016 has been passed qua petitioner Shiv
Kumar Vasesi and non-petitioners D.K. Jain and Jasbir Bakshi, who are
marginal witnesses of aforesaid Will. Considering specific allegations, I do
not find a fit case for quashing of complaint (Annexure P-6) and
summoning order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-10) qua Shiv Kumar
Vasesi. Petition bearing CRM-M-33091-2019 filed by petitioner Shiv
Kumar Vasesi is accordingly, dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly as well.
23.09.2024 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
