Allahabad High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Shooter Vartika Singh Who Accused Smriti Irani Of Corruption

A bench Justice Rajeev Singh observed that there was absolutely no evidence to substantiate the police's claim that she had forged the letters from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or the then Union Minister Smriti Irani's office.

Briefly put, Vartika Singh was allegedly contacted in April 2020 by Rajneesh Singh, who introduced himself as an active leader of the BJP and a "close one" to the then-Cabinet Minister Irani.

Rajneesh Singh allegedly lured the shooter by offering her a nomination as a Member of the National Commission for Women. He also sent certain documents to Vartika Singh via WhatsApp, including letters purportedly signed by Irani and addressed to the Prime Minister, recommending her appointment.

However, in November that year, Rajneesh Singh allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 25,00,000/- from her to finalise the appointment.

According to her claims, while refusing to pay the bribe, she attempted to expose the fraud and approached Irani to verify the documents and to complain about the demand for money.

Pursuant to this, multiple FIRs were lodged against her, including one by the Under Secretary (General Admin), alleging that she had prepared forged documents to defame Rajnish Singh's image.

Challenging the FIR for forgery, the international Shooter moved the HC, alleging that she had herself been defamed and victimised by Rajneesh Singh, but the charge sheet was mechanically submitted by the IO.

High Court's observations

Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, the contents of the application, other relevant documents and the case diary provided by the AGA, the HC noted that the record shows no evidence against the applicant for having forged letters.

It took into account the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian & Anr. Vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr, where it was held that if there is no evidence that documents were prepared by the accused, then no offence of forgery is made out.

"There is no evidence of cheating against the applicant in the entire material available before this Court and documents those were forwarded to the applicant were provided to the officials as well as other dignitaries for the inquiry. The closure report was also filed by the Investigating Officer in relation to Kamal Kishore (Commando), therefore, this Court is of the view that, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant, accordingly, impugned proceeding is liable to be set aside" the bench observed.

Thus, the application was allowed and the entire proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 509, 34 IPC and Section 66/67C IT Act were set aside in relation to the applicant