Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 4: In a significant order exposing serious gaps in investigation, the court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Jammu, has rejected the closure report filed by Police Station Domana in a 2017 cheating and forgery case involving an alleged forged will deed and directed the Crime Branch, Jammu, to conduct a thorough fresh investigation.
The order was passed by Arti Devi Koushal, Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Jammu, in case titled UT through SHO Police Station Domana Versus Nemo, arising out of FIR No. 304/2017 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B RPC at Police Station Domana. The case was earlier transferred to the court on the directions of the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu.
The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Raj Kumar, who alleged that accused persons, including Ashwani Kumar, Bansi Lal and Vijay Kumar, had hatched a criminal conspiracy and prepared a false and fabricated will deed in the name of deceased Soma Devi, widow of Shiv Ram. The complainant alleged that a fake person was produced before the Sub-Registrar and the forged will was used as genuine to grab landed property belonging to the deceased.
As per the complaint, Soma Devi had allegedly died in 1996, but a will deed was shown to have been attested and authenticated by the Sub-Registrar, Jammu, on June 26, 2001. The complainant further alleged that the accused projected Ashwani Kumar as the adopted son of Soma Devi and, on that basis, got the property transferred and even sold 2.5 marlas of land to his real brother for Rs 7 lakh, while another portion of land in Khasra No. 37 remained.
The police had filed a closure report on February 22, 2018, opining that the complaint was false. However, after hearing the complainant and perusing the record, the court found that the investigation had left several crucial questions unanswered and had relied mainly on documents produced by the accused persons themselves.
The court observed that the main allegations of the complainant revolved around forgery of documents, yet the Investigating Officer had failed to properly examine whether the documents relied upon were genuine or not. The court noted that the investigation focused largely on the death certificate of Soma Devi and the will deed, but did not sufficiently probe the alleged adoption, school record, identity documents, ration card record and the authenticity of the will.
In a crucial finding, the court observed that since Ashwani Kumar was claiming rights over the landed property on the basis of adoption, the adoption deed was a crucial piece of evidence and should have been collected or addressed during investigation. The court also noted that school records, Aadhaar card, PAN card and voter card of Ashwani Kumar required proper verification from concerned authorities to test the credibility of his claimed parentage.
The court further pointed out a glaring age inconsistency in the documents. It noted that Soma Devi’s age was shown as 72 years in 2001 at the time of registration of the will, but her age was shown as 90 years in 2007 in the death report relied upon by the Investigating Officer. The court observed that if Soma Devi was 72 years old in 2001, she would have been 78 years old in 2007, not 90, and such contradiction required detailed investigation.
The court also questioned why the death certificate of Soma Devi was registered only on December 23, 2017, after the FIR had been lodged on October 2, 2017, despite the claim that she had died on April 13, 2007. The court observed that the need for the death certificate appeared to have arisen after the lodging of FIR, and the Investigating Officer should have collected the actual record of the Municipal Court to examine whether any fraud had been committed even on that court.
The Magistrate also found that the ration card relied upon by the Investigating Officer had not been properly verified and that the age of accused Ashwani Kumar at the time of alleged adoption was an important legal factor which required investigation in light of restrictions under adoption law. The court said independent witnesses from the village, who may have participated in ceremonies of giving and taking the adopted child, should have been examined.
Holding that all these grey areas required proper investigation, the court refused to accept the closure report. Considering the gravity of allegations and need for scientific evidence, the court directed that the investigation should now be carried out by the Crime Branch, Jammu, a specialized wing of police.
The court sent the closure report and connected applications, objections, submissions and annexures to SHO/SSP Crime Branch, Jammu, through the prosecution wing of the court, with a direction to thoroughly investigate the matter, particularly the grey areas highlighted in the order. Since the FIR dates back to 2017, the court directed Crime Branch to make an endeavour to conclude the investigation and file a police report within 10 months from receipt of the file.
Follow our WhatsApp channel