Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Id No. 02406R0034112015 vs State on 20 April, 2015

    IN THE COURT OF SH LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS 
                JUDGE­04 & SPECIAL JUDGE SOUTH EAST 
                      SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
                                   
Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2015
ID No. 02406R0034112015

1         Naresh Goyal S/o Pramanand Goyal
          R/o A­27, Krishna Park, Devli road,
          Khanpur, New Delhi

2         Gayatri Goyal W/o Sh. Naresh Goyal
          R/o A­27, Krishna Park, Devli road
          Khanpur, New Delhi                                            ..... Petitioners

                         Versus

State                                                           .....Respondents

Instituted on :  31.01.2015
Argued on    :  20.04.2015
Decided on  :  20.04.2015
                                             O R D E R

1 This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the court of Sh. Pritam Singh, Ld. ACMM (SE) Saket Courts, New Delhi passed in FIR No. 221/11, PS New Friends Colony whereby the Ld. ACMM(SE) was pleased to frame charge for the offences under sections 420/468/471/34/120­B IPC.

2 Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioners have challenged the same on the following amongst other grounds:

That the impugned order was erroneous and the Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant had forged the MOU dated 15.12.2009 and had used the same in the court of law fraudulently to establish his possession over the property in question, for wich FIR No. 190/11 u/s 465/471 IPC was registered against him and the complainant had also withdrawn Naresh Goel & Anr. Vs. State ­ CR No. 21 of 2015 1/3 the civil suit filed by him against the petitioners herein, when the petitioners had challenged the authenticity of the aforesaid forged MOU.

It was stated further that PW Ramesh Batra, the stamp vendor in his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, recorded in the aforesaid case FIR no. 190/11 had categorically stated that the complainant had approached him to do a fake entry in the register regarding issuance of the forged stamp paper. Stamp paper No. F­635829 was got issued by the complainant in the name of the petitioner no. 2 for preparation of the another MOU and the earlier MOU which was prepared on the stamp paper bearing No. T­701126 dated 20.4.2010 and the MOU in question was neither registered nor even attested by the notary public and it also did not bear the signature of any attesting witness. The signatures of petitioner no. 2 were scanned and copies from the original MOU, which was in possession of the complainant and CFSL result was obtained merely on the basis of the photocopies of the MOUS by the investigating agency. Hence, the impugned order as passed by the Ld. MM was wholly illegal, arbitrary and suffers from serious infirmities and liable to be set aside.

3 I have gone through the impugned order, wherein it has been specifically stated that on the basis of the FSL result, signatures of both the parties including those of petitioner no. 2 herein had even matched on both the stamp papers bearing no. T­701126 and F­635829 in respect of which forgery was allegedly to have been done. After considering aforesaid piece of evidence collectively alongwith the statements of parties, Ld. ACMM (SE) was of the opinion that there was sufficient material to frame the charge for the offences Naresh Goel & Anr. Vs. State ­ CR No. 21 of 2015 2/3 under sections 420/468/471/34/120B IPC against the petitioners. 4 It is the cardinal principle of the criminal jurisprudence that the probable defence of the accused persons cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of the charge and all the pleas taken by petitioners before this Court pertain to the merits of the case, hence, the same cannot be appreciated at this stage, by this Court.

5 In view of the above discussion, I do not find that there is any merit in the present revision petition calling upon an interference of this Court in the exercise of its revisional powers and jurisdiction.

6 With these observations, the revision petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merits.

7 TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith copy of this order. 8 File of the revision petition be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary formalities.

 announced in the                                 
  open court  on                                       (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
20th April, 2015                       Additional Sessions Judge­04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) 
                                                            South East, New Delhi    

 




Naresh Goel & Anr. Vs. State ­ CR No. 21 of 2015                                                     3/3