Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application filed by Vartika Singh, an international shooter, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against her for allegedly forging documents for her appointment as a Member of the National Commission for Women (“NCW”), the Single Judge Bench of Rajeev Singh, J., allowed the application, holding that there was no evidence against her for forgery and cheating.
Background
Vartika Singh, an international shooter, was allegedly approached by a man named Rajneesh Singh, claiming that he was an active leader of the Bhartiya Janta Party, worked with the personal secretary of the then Minister Smriti Jubin Irani, and was the advisor in the Department of Central Food Corporation. He offered her nomination as a Member of NCW and sent some documents related to the favourable recommendation of Smriti Irani. Thereafter, he asked Vartika to send her educational and sports certificates, which were duly provided.
Rajneesh Singh also sent her air tickets and a letter showing that she had been recommended as a Member of the NCW and informed that it was duly signed by Smriti Irani and addressed to the Prime Minister. Thereafter, he informed Vartika about a second letter issued by the Prime Minister’s Office(“PMO”) and sent her a screenshot of the same. When she inquired about the letter issued by the PMO, she was told that no such inquiry is conducted at the personal level.
Further, Rajneesh Singh sent another air ticket and informed her that he was checking her file with Smriti Irani, and the appointment process was ongoing. He later informed her that the appointment could only be completed if she paid Rs 25 lakhs. To confirm the aforesaid demand, he sent a third unsigned letter from the Government of India regarding her appointment as a Member of the NCW. When she refused to pay, she was informed that the appointment could not be completed.
Aggrieved, Vartika tried to meet Smriti Irani and provided photocopies of all three letters sent by Rajneesh Singh, but received no positive response. She further approached the PMO and explained her grievance. Thereafter, four FIRs were lodged against Vartika.
She contended that the present FIR was lodged based on concocted facts that she made allegations against the complainant, Smriti Irani’s Personal Secretary, by preparing forged documents with the intention to damage his image.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that, evidently from the record, since April 2020, Rajneesh Singh started alluring Vartika for her nomination as a Member of NCW and demanded money from her. Thereafter, she made a complaint, providing copies of the letters forwarded by Rajneesh Singh. However, instead of examining her complaint, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet with the allegation that she prepared forged documents, but did not send any of those letters for F.S.L. examination to ascertain whether she forged them. Thus, the Court held that there was no evidence against Vartika Singh for making forged letters.
In this regard, the Court placed reliance on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581, wherein it was held that in case there is no evidence that documents were prepared by the accused, then no offence of forgery is made out.
The Court further held that there was no evidence of cheating against Vartika Singh in the entire material available before the Court, and the documents that were forwarded to her were provided to the officials for the inquiry. The Court further noted that the Investigating Officer filed the closure report regarding Kamal Kishore (Commando).
Therefore, the Court held that no alleged offence was made out against Vartika Singh and the impugned proceedings were set aside.
[Vartika Singh v. State of U.P., Application u/S 482 No. 2209 of 2022, decided on 19-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Rohit Kumar Tripathi, Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Vikas Singh
For the respondent: Government Advocate