State Of Gujarat ­

1.0 Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant­original complainant challenging the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Jodiya dated 23.8.2012 passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Inquiry M Case No.14 of 2011, by which, learned JMFC has accepted/ granted “B” Summary Report prayed by the concerned Investigating Officer of Jodiya Police Station.

2.0 That the applicant herein­original complainant instituted / filed a private complaint against the accused persons named in the said complaint in the Court of learned JMFC, Jodiya for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120­B of the Indian Penal Code with respect to the one sale deed alleged to have been executed by the father of the complainant alleged to have been executed in favour of the original accused no.1, which according to complainant does not bear the signature of her father and it was alleged that all the accused persons have connived with each other and committed the aforesaid offences. That the learned JMFC passed an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the Police Sub­Inspector, Jodiya to investigate the accuse and submit the report. It appears that thereafter, the case was registered as M Case No.14 of 2011 and after completing the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the “B” Summary Report. The learned Magistrate issued notice upon the applicant­original complainant to submit the objecting against “B” Summary Report and applicant herein­original complainant objected to grant of “B” Summary Report by submitting that as such investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer is faulty. It was submitted that as such as the dispute was with respect to the signature of the deceased father on the sale deed which was alleged to have been executed in favour of the original accused No.1 and alleged to have been signed by the father of the accused, same was required to be sent to handwriting Expert/ FSL. Therefore, it was requested not to accept/ grant “B” Summary Report and it was requested to direct the Investigating Officer to further investigate the case by sending the sale deed to FSL and / or Hand Writing Expert to verify the alleged signature of hear father on the sale deed and thereafter, to consider the same. However, the learned JMFC, without proper appreciating the difference between 'Further Investigation' and “Re­investigation” considered the request on behalf of the applicant for “Re­ Investigation” and prayer of the applicant of the applicant for further investigation has been rejected and has accepted the “B” Summary Report by impugned order.

3.0 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Jodiya dated 23.8.2012 passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Inquiry M Case No.14 of 2011, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.0 Shri Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for the applicant ­original applicant has vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate has materially erred in not ordering for further investigation on the aspect of alleged signature of the father of the complainant in the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the original accused no.1 and in not directing the Investigating Officer to send the sale deed to FSL and / or Hand Writing Expert to verify the signature of the applicant father collecting natural signature / handwriting of the deceased. It is submitted that when the dispute was with respect to the signature of the father of the complainant in the sale deed at least same was required to be sent to the handwriting expert and Investigating Officer has failed to investigate on the said aspect. Therefore, it is submitted that as such it was a fit case for further investigation. Therefore, it is requested to allow present Criminal Revision Application and quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Jodiya and direct the Investigating Officer to further investigate the case on the aspect of alleged signature of father of the applicant­original complainant in the sale deed executed in favour of the original accused no.1 so that the real truth may come out.

5.0 Shri Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has fairly conceded that as such no investigation has been carried out by the Investigating Officer with respect to the alleged signature of the father of the complainant in the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of original accused no.1 by sending it to the handwriting expert. Therefore, he has requested to pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and perused and considered the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the “B” Summary Report and rejecting the prayer of the applicant for further investigation.

7.0 At the outset, it is required to be noted that from the very beginning the case on behalf of the applicant ­original complainant is that the document/ sale deed which is alleged to have been executed in favour of the applicant does not bear signature of her father. Therefore, as Sub Investigating Officer was required to send the said document/ sale deed which bears the alleged signature of the father of the applicant to the handwriting expert to rule out suspicion. Therefore, the applicant ­original complainant requested for further investigation. However, the learned Magistrate has rejected the said prayer on the ground that he cannot pass order for “re­investigation”. However, the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the distinction between 'further investigation' and 're­investigation'. Considering the request made by the applicant, it appears that the request was made for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not re­investigation. Under the circumstances, before accepting the “B” Summary Report the learned Magistrate ought to have passed an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the concerned Investigating Officer to send the sale deed to handwriting expert to prove the signature of the father of the complainant by collecting natural handwriting / signature of the deceased father. Under the circumstances, without further entering into the merits of the case and / or expressing anything on merits and on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate deserves to be quashed and set aside by directing to keep the “B” Summary Report pending before the learned Magistrate and pending same to direct the concerned Investigating Officer to further investigate the case and send the sale deed to verify signature of the deceased further on the same to the handwriting expert after collecting natural handwriting / signature of the deceased father of the applicant.

8.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Revision Application succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Jodiya dated 23.8.2012 passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Inquiry M Case No.14 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside by further directing the learned JMFC, Jodiya to keep the said “B” Summary Report pending and pending the said report to direct the Investigating Officer to further investigate the case by directing the concerned Investigating Officer of Jodiya Police Station to send the sale deed for verification of the signature of the deceased father of the applicant and to send it to the handwriting Expert after collecting natural handwriting / signature of the deceased father. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the Investigating Officer within the period of three months from today and thereafter concerned Investigating Officer to submit further report/ chargesheet to the learned Magistrate which shall be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law and on merits while considering the earlier “B” Summary Report. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

“kaushik”

sd/­ ( M. R. Shah, J. )