Rajasthan High Court
Shri Harish Arora vs State Of Raj And Ors on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6509/2017
Shri Harish Arora S/o Late Shri Chetan Das Ji Arora, Aged about
58 years, R/o 200 Frintiyer Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Raj through PP
2. Shri Jyoti Prakash Kumar S/o Late Shri Rishi Kumar R/o 50,
Acharaya Kuplani Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
3. Smt. Asha Kumar W/o Shri Jyogi Prakash Kumar, R/o 580
Acharaya Kuplani Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
4. Smt. Meena Sapra W/o Shri Chandra Prakash Ji Sapra R/o 23,
Rajapark Adarsh Nagar, jaipur
5. Chandra Prakash Ji Sapra S/o Shri Hukum Chand Sapra R/o
C-23 Rajapark Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
6. Shri K N Ghai R/o 4/34 Jahawar Nagar, Jaipur
7. Smt. Shanti Devi Ghai W/o Shri K. N Ghai R/o 4/34 Jahawar
Nagar, Jaipur
8. Shri Krishan Gopal S/o Shri Hothuram R/o 521, Scheme 2
Lajpat Nagar, Alwar
9. Smt. Renu Arora W/o Shri Krishan Gopal S/o Shri Hothuram Ji
R/o 521 Scheme 2 Lajpat Nagar, Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 13.10.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 20.10.2022
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by
the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6509/2017]
06.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge Sati Nivaran
Prakaran, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur and order dated 15.03.2017
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned trial Court vide order dated 15.03.2017 wrongly allowed
the application filed by the co-accused Satish for examining of
disputed Will from Central Forensic Laboratory. Learned counsel
for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had filed the
revision petition of the said order but learned Revisional Court also
erred in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that accused
has no right to file the application before the learned trial Court
under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Investigating
Agency is free to file the additional investigation report by
exercising the power under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that Satish Kumar Arora
had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1283/2016 and said
petition was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
which clearly stated that the Investigating Agency has power to
file the additional material collected as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the State
Forensic Science Laboratory has submitted the report in which
clearly established that disputed Will is forged one. So, orders of
the learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court be set-
aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the following judgments:-(1) Amrutbhai Shambhubhai
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6509/2017]
Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors. reported in AIR
2017 SC 774; (2) Reeta Nag Vs. State Of West Bengal and
others reported in (2009) SCC 129; (3) Bikash Ranjan Rout
Vs. State through the Secretary(Home), Government Of
NCT of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.687/2019, SLP(Crl)
No.297/2015 decided on 16.04.2019; and (4) Sandeep
Khandelwal Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S. B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.3070/2017 decided on
04.07.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned
Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the orders of
the learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court do not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Learned counsel for the
respondents further submits that in first FSL report reveals that
investigation is not possible regarding forgery and second FSL
report was prepared without considering material documents. So,
learned trial Court rightly ordered for examination of disputed Will
by Central Forensic Laboratory. So, petition filed by the petitioner
be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as
well as learned Public Prosecutor.
It is an admitted position that in first FSL report reveals that
no comparison is possible and in second FSL report, certain
documents were not considered. Learned trial Court in its order
clearly stated that the documents Q-2 to Q-8 were not considered
while examining the disputed Will. So, in my considered opinion,
orders of the learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6509/2017]
Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, present
petition, devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands
dismissed.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/77
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
