Smt. Rashmi Sushma Agarwal v. Murti Devi and Others, whereby, the application filed by the

First Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Misc. Application No.346 of 2022 Smt. Rashmi @ Sushma Agarwal Vs. Murti Devi and Others, whereby, the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected, as well as the impugned judgment and order dated

22.07.2023 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No.556 of 2022 Smt. Rashmi @ Sushma Agarwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, whereby, the said revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.

3. The facts in brief are that the applicant filed an application under Sections 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned First Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against five 1 persons regarding abusing, threats of death, cheating and forgery committed by the respondent Nos.2 to 6. Learned First Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 05.12.2022 stating that the applicant has not complied with the provisions of Chapter 12, Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, challenging the order dated 05.12.2022, applicant filed a Criminal Revision No.556 of 2022 Smt. Rashmi @ Sushma Agarwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, before learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was dismissed on 22.07.2023 stating that the dispute between the applicant and the private respondents prima-facie appears to be civil in nature. Thus, the applicant is before this Court by challenging both the impugned orders.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the applicant’s application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a mechanical manner and the learned Revisional Court has also wrongly dismissed the revision of the applicant without following the provisions of law.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the true facts could only be come out after investigation by the police, as the crime is committed by committing forgery on the public documents by the public servants with collusion of interested person, so it is the wrong finding of the learned Magistrate that the applicant has no right to move the application and the order passed by the Courts below is liable to be quashed and application presented by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. 2

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the learned Courts below passed the impugned orders against the provisions of 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in the catena of the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that FIR presented is to be lodged and proper investigation is to be made in the matter.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the basis of its counter affidavit submits that the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. did not disclose any cognizable offence against the respondent Nos.5 and 6, as the applicant could not produce any single documents or evidence to show that they had committed cheating and forgery as per the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further stated that the applicant is trying to fish out documents to do so and the present C482 application is a mere attempt to somehow pressurize the respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are her mother and brother respectively and obtain a share in the property of her deceased father, although she had been deprived of any share by her father and the properties stood duly registered in the name of her mother. He also submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court has rightly passed the impugned judgments and orders.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to use its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as not doing so, will amount to abuse of process of law. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that the 3 police authorities are bound to register the FIR against the private respondents for such forgery which has been committed against the applicant.

9. Accordingly, the present C482 application is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2022, passed by the learned First Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Misc. Application No.346 of 2022 Smt. Rashmi @ Sushma Agarwal Vs. Murti Devi and Others, as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2023 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No.556 of 2022 Smt. Rashmi @ Sushma Agarwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, are hereby quashed. The facts narrated in the application of the applicant prima-facie make out commission of a cognizable offence against the private respondents.

10. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions leads to this Court to direct the learned Magistrate to decide the Misc. Application No.346 of 2022 Smt. Rashmi @ Sushma Agarwal Vs. Murti Devi and Others, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant, afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment.

11. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the Court below for doing the needful.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadb e38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE8 1FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D 959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.07.2025 4