Delhi District Court
Riyasat Ali vs Liyakat Ali on 5 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03, EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 49/2024
Riyasat Ali
S/o Sh. Sayed Ahmed
R/o: 1st Floor, 23/B,
West Laxmi Market,
Delhi-110051
..........Revisionist
Vs.
1. State
2. Liyakat Ali
S/o Sh. Sayed Ahmed
R/o at: Khora Colony,
Pusta-2, Near Noorani Market,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Meena
W/o Nasir Ali
R/o at: Rani Garden, Delhi-110051
4. Munna Khan
S/o Sh. Amiruddin
R/o at: A-2/172, East
Gokulpuri, Delhi-110053
5. Sueb
S/o Srafat Ali
R/o at: 5B, West Laxmi Market,
Delhi-110051
..........Respondents
Riyasat Ali Vs. State & Ors. Page no.1 of 7
Date of institution : 05.03.2024
Judgment reserved on : 05.11.2024
Judgment pronounced on : 05.11.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the revision challenging the order of Ld. trial court, dated 27.09.2023, passed in case number 1347/2022, whereby the application of the complainant/ revisionist (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') moved under Section 156 (3) of CrPC was dismissed, will be decided.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, alleged facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of the property no. 23-B, West Laxmi Nagar, Delhi by dint of a registered will dated 23.09.2009 executed by one Smt. Hasina.
The complainant had filed a suit against the respondent no.5 before Senior Citizen Tribunal and respondent no.5 filed a civil suit against the complainant on the basis of forged and fabricated GPA, agreement to sale, payment receipt and will dated 10.07.1990, which were allegedly executed by respondent no.2 in favour of his father/respondent no.5, wherein respondent no.3 and 4 were witnesses.
3. It has been alleged that the respondents forged aforesaid documents after obtaining stamp papers, where were never issued Riyasat Ali Vs. State & Ors. Page no.2 of 7 by the government. It is also alleged that seal of notary public on these documents are also forged.
4. It has also been alleged that in one of the said documents, respondent no.4 has mentioned his address as A-2/172, East Gokulpuri, Amar Colony, Delhi, however, in 1990, when this document was purportedly executed, Amar Colony did not exist at all let alone existance of house numbers.
5. It has further been alleged that the respondents are also threatening the complainant to pay them Rs. 10 lac or else they would implicate him in false cases.
6. Being aggrieved of the conduct of the respondents, the complainant lodged a complaint before the concerned SHO, but of no avail. Hence, he later moved an application u/s 156(3) CrPC before the Ld. Trial Court for registration of FIR, which was dismissed by Ld. trial court vide the impugned order. Hence, this revision.
7. Counsel for complainant argued that in the instant case, the respondents have forged GPA, agreement to sale, payment receipt and will dated 10.07.1990, which is evident from the fact that in one of these documents, address of respondent no.4 is mentioned as A-2/172, East Gokulpuri, Amar Colony, Delhi, however, in 1990, when this document was purportedly executed Riyasat Ali Vs. State & Ors. Page no.3 of 7 Amar Colony did not exist at all.
8. He also argued that the seal of the notary public on the aforesaid documents were also forged by the respondents.
He further argued that the respondents also obtained forged stamp papers for preparation of the aforesaid documents, which is a very serious offence and therefore, police investigation is required for collecting the evidence for the prosecution of the respondents.
9. Per contra, counsel for respondent no.2 to 5 argued that the allegations levelled against the respondents are false.
He also argued that the impugned is correct and does not suffer from any illegality and impropriety.
10. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the Ld. trial court record. During the pendency of the revision, it was submitted by complainant that the respondent no.2/Sh. Liyakat Ali had expired.
11. In Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, Crl. Appeal No.781/2012, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering the judgment of the constitution bench in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P, held that in an appropriate case, the Magistrate should verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations.
Riyasat Ali Vs. State & Ors. Page no.4 of 7 It was held that power under section 156 (3) CrPC warrants application of judicial mind because a court of law is involved. It is not the police, taking steps at the stage of Section 154 CrPC. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate.
This means that a Magistrate is not duty bound to order registration of FIR as and when an application under section 156(3) of CrPC is filed and he has to apply his mind.
12. Further, in M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State, 92 (2001) DLT 217, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that in those cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass orders under section 156(3) of the Code.
13. Furthermore, in Ravindra Kumar vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr, Crl.M.C. 2240/2013, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that remedy under 156(3) of CrPC is a discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the word 'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so and pass orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable offence and about the necessity of police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of the police. The complainant, as a matter of right, cannot insist that the complaint case filed by him should be directed in every eventuality to the police for investigation.
Riyasat Ali Vs. State & Ors. Page no.5 of 7
14. In the instant case, the documents in which, alleged forgery has been committed can easily be obtained by the complainant because admittedly, the respondent no.5 has filed a civil suit against him on the basis of the said documents.
15. Further, the factum/documents regarding the non existance of the address of respondent no.4 i.e. A-2/172, East Gokulpuri, Amar Colony, Delhi in the year 1990 can also be obtained by the complainant from the concerned authority.
16. As far as the forged seal of the notary public is concerned, the same can also be proved by summoning the concerned notary public, whose seal appear on the alleged documents.
17. Apart from this, as far as the allegations regarding the forged stamp papers are concerned, the complainant has not mentioned as to how he has come to know that the said stamp papers are forged because in the complaint, he has only alleged that as per his knowledge the stamp papers are forged and that the seal of notary public on the documents are also forged.
18. Considering the aforesaid allegations, at this stage, it appears that matter does not need to be investigated by the police because all the necessary documents are easily accessible by the Riyasat Ali Vs. State & Ors. Page no.6 of 7 complainant. Moreover, the identity of the alleged persons is also known to him.
19. Even otherwise, Ld. Trial Court has listed the matter for pre-summoning evidence and if the need of police investigation arises, then section 202 of CrPC can be resorted to.
20. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, hence, it needs no interference. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.
21. Nothing said herein above, shall, however, be construed as any expression of opinion on the merit of the case.
22. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
(Subhash Kumar Mishra)
Additional Sessions Judge-03,
East, KKD Courts, Delhi
05.11.2024
Riyasat Ali Vs. State & Ors. Page no.7 of 7