Delhi District Court
State vs Brijmohan Gupta on 23 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-04, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 464848/2015
CNR Number DLNE020002732008
FIR Number 267/2007
Police Station Dilshad Garden
Name of the Complainant/Informant Ms. Sushila Garg
Name of the Accused, his 1. Brij Mohan Gupta
parentage and address S/o Late Satpal Gupta
R/o H. No. 990-91, Janta Flat, GTB
Enclave, Delhi.
2. Mariya James
W/o Sh. Benson Maishy
R/o A-76, Village Parparganj, Peer Wali
Gali, Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence Between 30.06.1989 to 17.09.2007 and
particularly on or about 15.12.1993
Date of institution 15.05.2008
Offences complained of U/s. 420/468/471/34 IPC
Offences charged of U/s. 420/468/471/34 IPC
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of final arguments 20.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 23.05.2026
Final Order Convicted
FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA
Page 1 of 25
ZAIDI
Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
2026.05.23
15:40:25 +0530
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present case are that complainant had been residing at House No. 178-179, Sector 40, Noida. In the year 1989, husband of the complainant purchased flat no. 364, DDA Janta Flat, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93 from Mariya James through one Satpal Gupta, who was the proprietor of Gupta Properties vide agreement to sell and GPA, dated 30.06.1989 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- were paid as earnest money and Rs. 71,900/- were also paid. The balance amount in sum of Rs. 33,100/- was paid to Satpal Gupta on 30.06.1989. The possession of the said flat was handed over to the complainant, however, the original DDA documents of the said flat were not handed over by Satpal Gupta despite repeated requests to hand over the same. On 21.06.1994, the father of the complainant namely Kunj Vihari filed a complaint before GTB Police Post. The said original documents were not handed over to the complainant on the pretext of installation of electricity meter by Satpal Gupta.
02. Subsequently, complainant came to know that the son of Late Satpal Gupta namely Moni Gupta @ Brij Mohan Gupta got transferred electricity, water bill, house tax receipt and other DDA document in his name through misrepresentation. It is further stated by the complainant that since 1989, complainant, her father, her brother and wife of her brother were residing in the said flat. When the complainant confronted with Brij Mohan Gupta, he started abusing her verbally and threatened her. Thereafter, an FIR was registered under section 420/468/471 IPC in pursuance of the application under section 156 (3) Cr.PC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
03. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 420/468/471/34 IPC was filed before the court against the accused persons. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 15.05.2008 and accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, copies of documents, Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 2 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:42:37 +0530 relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to them as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.06.2014, charge under sections 420/468/471/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
04. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
S. No. Name of the witness
01. Ms. Sushila Garg
02. ASI Omvir Singh
03. ASI Raj Kumar
04. Sh. Praveen
05. ASI Parmendra Kumar
06. Sh. Akash Choudhary
07. Sh. Devak Ram
08. SI Sanyogita
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION
S. No. Exhibits Nature of documents
1. Ex. PW1/A Agreement to Sell & Purchase
2. Ex. PW1/B Agreement to appoint Arbitrator
3. Ex. PW1/C Receipt of Rs. 48,000/-
4. Ex. PW1/D Will dated 30.06.1989
5. Ex. PW1/E Complaint
6. Ex. PW1/F Seizure Memo of the documents handed over on
14.12.2007 to the IO
7. Ex. PW1/G Seizure Memo of the documents handed over on
Digitally signed
FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta
ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: Page 3 of 25
2026.05.23
ZAIDI 15:42:45
+0530
19.09.2007 to the IO
8. Ex. PW1/H to Ex. Receipts of the amount deposited by husband of
PW1/J complainant
9. Ex. PW1/K Judgment passed in civil suit No. 281/2008
10. Ex. PW1/L Seizure Memo of original Power of Attorney
11. Ex. PW1/M Seizure Memo of complaint dated 21.06.1994 and four
receipts dated 21.12.1998, 05.06.1997, 27.05.1997 and 15.05.1997.
12. Ex. PW1/N Certified copy of Appeal No. RCA-55/13 filed by accused Brij Mohan Gupta
13. Ex. PW1/O Certified copy of Eviction Suit No. 70/11 dated 03.10.2015
14. Ex. PW2/A FIR & Original FIR Register No. 483/92
15. Ex. PW2/B Endorsement on Rukka
16. Ex. PW3/A Order, in which the Ration Card No. 357827 has been weeded out
17. Ex. PW4/A Deposit Receipt of case property in FSL Rohini
18. Ex. PW5/A Conveyance Deed dated 04.04.2006, Possession Letter dated 10.05.1983 and Demand Letter dated 10.01.1983.
19. Ex. PW5/B PA and Agreement to Sell dated 15.12.1993
20. Ex. PW6/A Opinion given on the examination of documents received from SHO PS Dilshad Garden
21. Ex. PW7/A Arrested Memo of accused Mariya James
22. Ex. PW7/B Personal Search Memo of accused Mariya James
23. Ex. PW7/C Disclosure Statement of accused Mariya James
05. PW Ms. Sushila Garg, in her examination in chief deposed that her husband Late Narender Kumar had purchased the property bearing no 364, DDA Janta Flat, Nand Nagari, Delhi from allottee Mariya James through Satpal Gupta in the year 1989 vide documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, SPA and papers of DDA and receipt (possession slip) of Rs. 48,000/-. She deposed that total consideration money of the said property was Rs. 1,10,000/- and his late husband had given earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- and also an amount of Rs. 71,900/- through Satpal Gupta to Mariya James. She further deposed that on 08.04.1989, Satpal Gupta had written that Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 4 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:42:53 +0530 the remaining amount of Rs. 33,100/-, which her late husband handed over to Satpal Gupta through Mariya James on 30.06.1989 at the time of handing over of the possession of the property to her husband. She deposed that Possession Slip of Rs. 48,000/- was issued by Mariya James through Satpal Gupta at that time and the relevant documents were executed between her late husband and Mariya James i.e. Agreement to Sell and Purchase Ex PW-1/A, Agreement to appoint Arbitrator Ex. PW1/B, Receipt of Rs. 48,000/- Ex. PW1/C and Will dated 30.06.1989 Ex. PW1/D.
06. She deposed that thereafter, she received a notice from Karkardooma Court regarding rent sent by accused Brij Mohan Gupta, on which, on 21.08.2007, she had gone to accused Brijmohan Gupta, where he had inquired from him regarding the said notice, on which he stated that "jo mujhe karna tha maine kar liva, tum mera kuch nahi bigad sakti ho" and he abused her in filthy language. She deposed that 2-3 persons were also present there. She deposed that Brijmohan Gupta also stated that "tum chali jao aur makaan khali kar do, warna main tumhe jaan se maar dunga", thereafter, he returned to his home as he was afraid by the threats of accused Brij Mohan Gupta. She deposed that on 22.08.2007, she had given a written complaint Ex. PW1/E to the SHO PS Dilshad Garden and DCP and ACP regarding the said incident. She further deposed that on 19.09.2007, on the basis of her complaint, present FIR was registered, thereafter, she had also filed a civil suit regarding the said property. She deposed that she handed over the original papers of the property to the IO and also some documents to the IO at PS on 14.12.2007 which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/F. She deposed that on 19.09.2007, she also handed over documents to the IO which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/G.
07. She deposed that her late husband Narender Kumar had also deposited some amounts of Rs. 1,330/- on 15.05.1997, Rs. 15,200/- on 27.05.1997 and Rs. 3,725/- on 05.06.1997 with DDA in the name of Mariya James vide Receipts Ex. PW1/H, Ex. PW1/I and Ex. PW1/J. She deposed that after the registration of FIR in the present case, she came to know that accused Brij Mohan Gupta had Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta 2026.05.23 Page 5 of 25 ZAIDI 15:43:00 +0530 prepared the false and fabricated documents i.e. electricity bill, DDA documents, receipt of house tax etc. in collusion with accused Mariya James. She deposed ahat thereafter, she along with her brother Suresh Beniwal went to the office of Brij Mohan Gupta at 1002, DDA Janta Flat, who used to run the office in the name of Gupta Properties. She asked accused Brij Mohan Gupta as to what he had done, on which, he replied that "Mujhe jo karna hai, kara liya". She deposed that thereafter, accused started hurling filthy abuses to her and she along with her brother returned to home as 2-3 persons were present at his office.
08. She deposed that accused Brij Mohan Gupta told her to vacate the property/flat bearing No. 364, DDA Janta Flat and if she would not vacate it, then he would threaten her to kill, thereafter, she filed a civil suit and on 16.07.2011, the said suit was decided in her favour declaring the documents of accused Brij Mohan Gupta as null and void. She deposed that she had handed over the original power of attorney to the police and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/L and also handed over one complaint dated 21.06.1994 and four receipts dated 21.12.1998, 05.06.1997, 27.05.1997 and 15.05.1997 to the police. She deposed that her husband namely Late Narender Kumar Garg had made the payments of receipts dated 31.12.1998, 05.06.1997, 27.05.1997 and 15.05.1997 in the name of Mariya James. She deposed that on 21.06.1994, his father namely Kunj Vihari Goyal had filed a complaint at GTB police post regarding not handing over the original documents by accused Brij Mohan, who was the property dealer.
09. She deposed that one property dealer namely Satpal Gupta (since deceased) had taken her original document of DDA on the pretext of installing the electric meter at H.No. 364. Janta Flat Nand Nagri. Delhi. She deposed that on 30.06.1989, when her husband had purchased the flat through one Satpal Gupta, he had taken the original DDA documents of the said flat for said purpose.
ISRA Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: 2026.05.23
FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ZAIDI 15:43:17 +0530 Page 6 of 25
10. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 admitted that she had stated the name of Mariya James as accused in her complaint Ex. PW1/A, however, on confronting the complaint Ex. PW1/A, she stated that complaint did not have the name of Mariya James as accused. She deposed that she was aware that a complaint was given by her father on 21.06.1994. She did not know whether the said complaint was having details of conspiracy by the accused Brij Mohan Gupta and Mariya James. She admitted that the complaint dated 21.06.1994 did not have the name of Mariya James as accused. She testified that she never made a complaint against Satpal Gupta (father of accused) as she came to know about the fraud in 2007 only. She testified that her husband had expired on 23.01.2007. She testified that her husband orally asked the accused persons to hand over the documents of flat in question but they never did. She did not remember whether she had asked the accused persons to return the documents of flat in question in writing. She admitted that Ration Card was issued in the name of her father as Kunj Vihari Lal Goel.
11. She testified that she and her husband had not issued any 'No Objection Certificate' to Food & Supply Department for issuing Ration Card in the name of her father. She admitted that no Ration Card was issued in the name of her husband for the said flat in question. She did not remember her date of marriage. She testified that no other documents were prepared in her name and her family member. She admitted that her father had got prepared ration card on the said address being the head of the family and that her name was also mentioned in the ration card being member of the family. She did not remember, if the ration card was got issued by her father on 01.06.1994. She testified that she got married with her husband in the year 1983. She admitted that she had no other ration card on the present address and that the name of her husband was not mentioned in the ration card. She did not remember whether she had stated to the IO that she had ration card at the address of Noida also. She admitted that there was gas connection in the house which was in the name of her father or brother.
Digitally signedISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta 2026.05.23 Page 7 of 25 ZAIDI 15:43:26 +0530
12. She testified that the property was locked and was in her possession. She did not remember whether any document having the address of the present property was given to the IO or not. She testified that she had applied in DDA to get the property free hold in her name in the year 2011. She did not remember whether her husband had got the property free hold in his name or not. She testified that she knew accused Mariya James since 30.06.1989 and she had never given any complaint against accused Mariya James in the PS. She testified that she had stated to the IO that she had met Mariya James before 30.06.1989 regarding the property in question. She further testified that she was present at the time of transaction of the property in question on 30.06.1989 and the documents were signed in her presence by Mariya James and Satpal Gupta (property dealer) and Sh. Narender Kumar Garg. She did not remember if any other person had also signed the documents. She testified that she had not signed the documents regarding the property in question on 30.06.1989. She testified that the documents were perhaps prepared and registered at Seelampur. She testified that she had stated to the IO that the documents were registered after their execution.
13. She did not remember whether the consideration amount was paid in full prior to registration of documents or not. She testified that she had mentioned the names of accused persons in her application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. She could not say as to whether the accused Mariya James was named in her complaint in the court. She could not say whether any legal notice was given by accused Brij Mohan Gupta to Kunj Vihari as she was not aware about the same. She did not know whether any eviction petition was filed by accused Brij Mohan Gupta against her father Kunj Vihari. She did not remember the names of witnesses, who were present and signed the documents executed in the favour of her husband in the year 1989. She admitted that a bayana amount of Rs. 5,000/- was given by her husband. She did not remember the date on which bayana was advanced. She was not aware whether the bayana receipt was obtained by IO or not.
Digitally signedFIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta
ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: Page 8 of 25
2026.05.23
ZAIDI 15:43:34
+0530
14. She was also not aware whether any agreement was executed between her husband and accused Mariya James regarding arbitration. She did not remember whether Ex. PW1/B was the same agreement. She did not know whether her father Kunj Vihari was tenant of accused Brij Mohan. She testified that she had provided documents from the bank for verification of signature of her husband Sh. Narender Kumar. She did not know the manner in which the consideration amount for the property in question was arranged and paid by her husband in the year 1989. She denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsels.
15. PW ASI Omvir Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that on 19.09.2007, he registered the present FIR Ex. PW2/A and made endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW2/B.
16. PW ASI Raj Kumar had brought on record FIR Register No. 483/92 qua FIR No. 94/93, PS Seema Puri u/s. 379 IPC and 39 of E.C Act. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
17. PW Praveen had brought the documents i.e. Ration Card No. 357827, in which record of the said Ration Card had been weeded out vide order No. F3(25)CFS/P&C/2004-05/715-727 dated 18.05.2005. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he testified that the letter was issued by Shyam Sunder Sharma, Food & Supply officer, GNCT, Delhi. He testified that the record in question was not traceable as the same was 30 years old.
18. PW ASI Permendra Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that on 31.03.2008, he collected the case property from Malkhana in sealed condition and took the same to FSL Rohii for scientific examination and deposited the same there ad copy of Road Certificate after returning to PS handed over to the MHC(M). He deposed that the case property was not tampered while the same was in his custody. During cross-examination, he did not remember the time when he received the Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 9 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:43:51 +0530 pullanda from Malkhana and time of depositing the same in the FSL, Rohini. He testified that his statement was recorded in the PS. He denied the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsels.
19. PW Sh. Akash Choudhary has brought on record Conveyance Deed dated 04.04.2025, NOC issued by DDA for installation of water connection and electricity connection dated 10.05.1983, possession letter issued by DDA dated 10.05.1983, Demand letter issued by DDA in favour of Marya James dated 10.01.1983 and GPA and Agreement to Sell executed by Marya James in favour of Brij Mohan, both dated 15.12.1993. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity.
20. PW Sh. Devak Ram, in his examination in chief deposed that on 20.09.2012, certain documents were received from SHO PS Dilshad Garden vide memo number 529/SHO/Dilshad Garden dated 31.03.2008. He deposed that he examined the documents with the help of available instruments in his laboratory and gave his opinion. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels, despite opportunity.
21. PW SI Sanyogita, in his examination in chief deposed that on 21.12.2007, IO interrogated the accused Mariya James, arrested her and her personal search was conducted by her. She deposed that IO recorded the the discloser statement of accused Mariya James and thereafter, she along with IO had taken accused Mariya James to GTB hospital for medical examination. During cross- examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she did not remember whether any other person had also witnessed the arrest of the accused Mariya James. She testified that other police officials were also present in police station when arrest and discloser statement was being made. She did not know whether IO had served any notice to accused Mariya James or she had come on her own in PS. She denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsels.
Digitally signedFIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta
ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: Page 10 of 25
2026.05.23
ZAIDI 15:43:59
+0530
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S. 313 Cr.PC
22. The accused persons were examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC on 30.06.2025 and accused Mariya James stated that she did not know the complainant as well as Mr. Brij Mohan Gupta. She never met them before the filing of the present case. She had sold the property to property dealer Mr. Satpal Gupta on 1989 against amount of Rs. 1 lakh. She did not know anything about the case. She received the summons in the present case at a very belated stage and a false case has been registered against her. Whereas, accused Brij Mohan Gupta stated that he had purchased the property bearing No. 364, Janta Flat from Mariya James. A false complaint has been lodged by the complainant against him and he did not conspire against the complainant with the co-accused. They both stated that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Brij Mohan Gupta led evidence in his defence. However, accused Mariya James did not lead evidence in her defence despite opportunity.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
23. DW1 Sh. Rajeev Kumar, in his examination in chief, he deposed that as per the record, Brij Mohan Gupta was paying the house-tax till date. He produced the attested copy of conveyance deed executed between Mariya James and Brij Mohan i.e. Ex. DW1/1 (Colly) and also brought attested copy of Demand & Collection Register along with the property tax receipt bearing no. PT 623202 i.e. Ex.DW1/2. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he admitted that he had not personal knowledge about the present case.
24. DW2 Sh. Vanson Masey did not depose anything in the present case. He was not cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State despite opportunity.
25. DW3 Sh. Sandeep Chopra brought on record Ex. DW3/A of Flat No. Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 11 of 25 ZAIDI 2026.05.23 15:44:05 +0530 364, Janta Falat, Nand Nagri, Delhi, which was in the name of Brij Mohan Gupta, as per their revenue management system w.e.f 27.02.2012 till 15.12.2025. During cross- examination in Ld. APP for the State, he testified that he got transferred in GTB Enclave Branch, Delhi Jal Board as Addl. Zonal Revenue Officer in the month of July 2025. He testified that there was not availability of old record in their zone GTB Enclave prior to 27.02.2012.
26. DW4 Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta, in his examination in chief deposed that he purchased one house i.e. 364, Janta Flat, GTB Enclave from Mariya James on 15.12.1993. She also handed over the property documents and transferred the power of attorney to him and agreement to sell and will were also prepared and the payment receipt were also received by him. He deposed that he also submitted the relevant documents in the department of DDA i.e. Demand Letter, Possession Letter, Possession Slip and NOC of electricity and water. He further deposed that he also paid the requisite fee of the department and accordingly, the said property turned free-hold in his favour and they also handed over conveyance deed i.e. Ex.DW4/A. He deposed that on 15.07.2006, he also mutated the House Tax on his name i.e. Ex.DW4/B and received the Mutation Letter from the concerned department i.e. Ex.DW4/C.
27. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he testified that the connection in question got transferred in his name on 13.12.2006. After drawing the attention of the witness towards Mark X, the witness was specifically asked whether the number mentioned at point A was his number to which witness replied that it was not his number and also he could not say to whom that number belonged. He did not know whether the same number belonged to the complainant. He testified that there was a time when Delhi Jal Board did not mention the mobile no./ contact no. of the subscribers. He did not remember whether any civil court case had declared the case no. 281/08 as null and void.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
Page 12 of 25ZAIDI 2026.05.23 15:44:11 +0530
28. He did not knew whether there was any criminal case pending against him and complainant i.e. Case No. 501/25 and Ct. No. 199/2021. He did not know whether any E. No. 70/11 dismissed by the Court and it was not challenged by him. He did not know whether any decree was passed in favour of Sushila Garg. He testified that the said connection number was on his name continuously since 2006 and till date. He testified that there was only one witness of the transaction in which he purchased the property from Mariya James in the presence of her husband who witnessed the same, however he did not know the name. He testified that he did not know who was Narendra Kumar.
29. He testified that he had not come across any information by the Mariya James that she had sold out the property to Narendra Kumar. He testified that the complainant Sushila Garg never visited his office i.e. 1002, DDA Janta Flat to complain him about the alleged incident in question. He testified that he never told Sushila Garg to vacate the house ie. 364, DDA Janta Flat. He further testified that he had never received any information in which he was stated that one civil suit no. 281/2008 was filed against him. He testified that he never filed any case against Sushila Garg. He testified that he knew Kunj Vihari Goyal since 1994 as he was his tenant. He did not know whether any complaint was filed by Kunj Vihari Goyal against him on 21.06.1994. He testified that Satpal Gupta was his father. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
30. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 20.05.2026. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the case against the accused persons are false and frivolous and has prayed that accused persons be acquitted of the offence charged. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused persons be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons.
Digitally signedFIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 13 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:44:18 +0530
31. It is argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that prime witness namely Kunj Vihari and Suresh Goel were not examined as a witness by the prosecution. Also, the IO is dropped from the list of witnesses as he expired. He also argued that the chargesheet could not be proved as the IO had expired. During the course of arguments, attention of this Court was drawn towards the document Mark X, which is a complaint given by Kunj Vihari, who is the father of the complainant, to Chowki Incharge GTB Nagar, wherein, he claimed to be the owner of the said plot. It was also argued that the record of the RC bearing No. 357827 was weeded out and was not produced before the Court. It is also noted that Sh. D.K. Singh, the Advocate, who had issued notice, was also not examined by the prosecution as a witness. It is also argued that the FIR was lodged after 18 years of incident for which prosecution has not put forth any reasonable explanation. It is also emphasized that prosecution did not examine Notary Public, who were attested witnesses to the agreement executed between Narender Kumar and Mariya James. The document of the free hold property could not be produced by the prosecution regarding the allegations of forgery. It is submitted that the FSL result claims that sample signatures of accused Brij Mohan Gupta matched with his sign annexed on the property documents executed between Mariya James and Brij Mohan Gupta, so there cannot be a forgery as signature belonged to him. It was vehemently argued that since the beginning of the prosecution story, it is claimed that original property documents were not in the possession of the husband of the complainant. But, as per the seizure memo, IO obtained the original documents of property in question between Narender Kumar and Mariya James from complainant Sushila. It was also argued that the initial complaint is silent about accused Mariya James.
32. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused persons be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons. It is further argued by Ld. APP for the State that merely because Kunj Vihari, Suresh Goel and IO were not examined, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and that testimony of PW1 stood on its own legs to Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 14 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:44:28 +0530 support the case of the prosecution. Regarding the retention of the documents, a complaint was also given by Kunj Vihari on 21.06.1994. Ld. APP for the State pointed out towards the complaint Ex. PW1/E given to DCP North East by the complainant, wherein it is categorically stated that Satpal Gupta had not handed over the original documents of DDA to Narender Kumar and that the documents regarding the execution of property between Narender Kumar and Mariya James were already in the possession of complainant. Regarding delay in registration of FIR, it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that when the husband of the complainant died in the year 2007, she came to know about the cheating and forgery committed by accused persons. The complainant and her family was in possession of said property. He also pointed out that delay in registration of FIR is justified as cheating and forgery came to the knowledge of the complainant after the death of her husband and to strengthen her claim, she filed, the civil suit against accused persons and in pursuance of which, the documents executed by Mariya James in favour of Brij Mohan Gupta were declared as null and void.
33. Ld. APP for the State further pointed out that sale consideration of the said plot was Rs. 1,10,000/- in the year 1989 between Narender Kumar and Mariya James, while on the contrary, the sale consideration of subsequent GPA between Mariya James and Brij Mohan Gupta was for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which creates a doubt as to why the property was subsequently transferred to Brij Mohan Gupta for just half of the consideration amount. He further pointed out that the transaction by way of GPA which took place between Narender Kumar and Mariya James was well within the knowledge of Brij Mohan Gupta as the dealings between Narender Kumar and Mariya James took place through the property dealer namely Satpal Gupta, who was the father of Brij Mohan Gupta. Ld. APP for the State has relied upon certain judgments to support its case titled as "A.S. Krishnan & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3229", "Ram Narain Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2748", Behari Prasad etc. Vs. State of Bihar, 1996 SCC (2) 317".
Digitally signed by FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
Page 15 of 25ZAIDI 2026.05.23 15:44:34 +0530
34. This court has heard the submissions of Learned. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
35. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offences punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt:
Section 420 IPC:
"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 468 IPC:
"Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 471 IPC:
"Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document."
36. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 16 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:44:41 +0530 prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
37. PW1 has given a consistent account that the property in question was originally purchased in 1989 by her husband Late Narender Kumar from accused Mariya James through validly executed GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will and receipt. The possession of the said property was duly handed over at that time and the same is also corroborated by documentary evidence placed on record, including payment receipts and DDA related executed by the accused Mariya James in favour of Narender Kumar.
38. The testimony of PW1 appears to be natural, consistent and inspires confidence. PW1 categorically deposed that after the registration of FIR in the present case, she came to know that accused Brij Mohan Gupta had prepared the false and fabricated documents i.e. electricity bill, DDA documents, receipt of house tax etc. in collusion with accused Mariya James.
39. She admitted that accused Brij Mohan Gupta and Mariya James conspired to grab her flat by preparing forged document and that accused Brij Mohan Gupta knew about the purchase of flat in question and she took physical possession of the flat in question in the presence of accused Brij Mohan Gupta and Mariya James. She categorically deposed she along with her brother Suresh Beniwal went to the office of Brij Mohan Gupta at 1002, DDA Janta Flat, who used to run the office in the name of Gupta Properties.
40. A significant circumstance which emerges from the bare reading of the document Ex. PW1/E is that the original documents of DDA were retained by the property dealer, who is admittedly the father of accused Satpal Gupta on the pretext Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 17 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:44:49 +0530 of facilitating installation of electricity connection and other services, thereby induced him and the original documents of DDA were not handed over to the husband of the complainant or the complaint to handover the said document. She categorically deposed that Satpal Gupta had retained the original documents of DDA on the pretext of installation of the electricity meter. The retention of documents on part of father of the accused Brij Mohan Gupta forms an important link in the chain of circumstances.
41. The evidence of PW1 further establishes that the prior sale in 1989 happened and thereafter the accused Mariya James executed fresh documents in 1993 in favour of accused Brij Mohan Gupta with respect to the very same property knowing fully well that she had no authority to execute the said GPA and no subsisting right, title or authority was vested with accused Mariya James to again deal with the property.
42. Moreover, the prosecution has also relied upon the certified copy of the civil suit Ex.PW1/K and that of the appeal filed by the accused Brij Mohan Gupta which was dismissed vide Ex PW1/N wherein documents i.e conveyance deed dated 20.03.2006 and 22.03.2006, GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Will, Possession Letter and receipts dated 25.10.1993 with respect to the suit property executed by accused Mariya James in favour of accused Brij Mohan Gupta were declared null and void by the Ld. Civil Court which lends a strong corroboration, thus, supporting the prosecution version that the subsequent documents could not have conferred a valid title to accused Brij Mohan Gupta.
43. The execution of such documents in 1993 therefore becomes legally untenable. In this context, Explanation I to section 464 IPC is being relied upon that even if a document is signed by a person in his or her own name, it may still amount to forgery if it is executed without lawful authority and with dishonest intention. The execution of documents by accused Mariya James 1993 in favour of accused Brij Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 18 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:44:55 +0530 Mohan Gupta clearly constitutes making of a false document, as she knowing fully well that she had no authority to transfer a property in the year 1993 already alienated in 1989 to Narender Kumar through the Satpal Gupta the property dealer.
44. Also, the conduct of accused Brij Mohan Gupta cannot be viewed in isolation. It is admitted that the property dealer Satpal Gupta who initially handled the transaction between Narendra Kumar and Mariya James is the father of accused Brij Mohan Gupta who retained the original DDA documents. This establishes a proximate nexus between accused Mariya James, Satpal Gupta and accused Brij Mohan Gupta. In such circumstances, the plea of complete ignorance by accused Brij Mohan Gupta regarding the prior sale made in favour of Narender Kumar is highly improbable and does not inspire confidence. The claim by the accused Brij Mohan Gupta that he had no knowledge of earlier transaction is not supported by surrounding circumstances, particularly when document pertaining to the DDA were lying with the father of accused Brij Mohan Gupta namely Satpal Gupta. It has been categorically stated in Ex PW1/E that the office of Brij Mohan Gupta at 1002, DDA Janta Flat, who used to run the office in the name of Gupta Properties, which has not been challenged by way of cross examination and has been corroborated by the testimony of the said witness.
45. The FSL report, also supports the prosecution case. The sample signatures of both the accused persons were obtained during investigation. The document containing specimen signatures of accused Mariya James S7 to S11 matched with those of Q1 to Q16 which contained the signature of accused Mariya James on GPA, SPA, Agreement to sell, appoint arbitrator, affidavit, receipt in sum, of Rs 48,000/ executed between her Narender Kumar. S7- S11 also matched with A1 and A2 i.e allotment letter and possession slip in favour of Mariya James containing the signatures of Mariya James. The document of specimen signature of accused Brij Mohan Gupta S1 to S6 matched with those of Q19 which contained the signature of Digitally signed by FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 19 of 25 ZAIDI 2026.05.23 15:45:02 +0530 accused Brij Mohan Gupta on executed between her Narender Kumar. The same is proved by the report ExPW6/A.
46. PW Sh. Devak Ram the FSL Expert testified that he examined the signatures and gave his opinion on the documents in question. The defence completely failed to cross-examine this witness. In the case of Sarwan Singh Vs State of Punjab (2003) 1SSCC 240, it was observed that, it is a rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in cross examination it must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that if a party fails to cross-examine a witness on a crucial point, they are deemed to have accepted the statement.
47. During the course of arguments, it was emphasized that there was a prolonged delay of about 18 years in the registration of the FIR. It is trite that the delay in lodging FIR is a relevant fact which the court must observe or take notice. The court has to see if delay is adversely affecting the case of prosecution. This is a matter of appreciation of evidence. It has been held in plethora of judgments that delay in lodging FIR can be either explained by direct evidence or there may be circumstances explaining the delay.
48. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No strait Jacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts.
49. If prosecution fails to explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on an account of such delay, the delay Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 20 of 25 ZAIDI 2026.05.23 15:45:10 +0530 would be fatal to the prosecution, however, delay is explained to the satisfaction to the court delay cannot be itself a ground for disbelieving and disregarding the entire prosecution case.
50. The clarification regarding the delay in registration of the FIR has been successfully put forth by the prosecution. The complainant came to know regarding the same when she received notice regarding rent from the Court and that accused Brij Mohan Gupta asked to vacate the said property. Subsequently it came to her knowledge that accused Brij Mohan Gupta has misused the documents in collusion with Mariya James as has been categorically deposed by her in her examination in chief duly corroborated by the complaint Ex PW1/B. The delay in registering the FIR appears to be justified as the complainant only discovered the fraud when she received a court notice regarding rent from accused Brij Mohan Gupta to vacate the premises. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay in lodging an FIR is never fatal if the informant offers a spontaneous, rational explanation. In the case of Ravinder Kumar & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2001) 7 SCC 69, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that delay in lodging an FIR is never fatal if the informant offers a spontaneous, rational explanation.
51. The contention of the Ld defence counsel that Kunj Vihari claimed to be the owner of the said plot is negated by the stance that the document executed by the accused Mariya James in favour of accused Brij Mohan Gupta were declared as null and void by the civil Court and categorically held that plaintiff namely Sushila Garg was the owner of the suit property by the virtue of documents dated 30.06.1989. The non-examination of notary public/Kunj Vihari/Advocate D.K. Singh is also not fatal to the case of the prosecution as the ownership of Sushila/ her husband over the property in question is not in dispute before this Court. More so, the non-examination of PW Suresh Goyal and IO also is not adversely affecting the case of the prosecution as the testimony of PW1 is fully consistent , corroborative and in line with the story Digitally signed FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 21 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:45:16 +0530 of the prosecution which also goes in consonance with the documents relied upon by the prosecution.
52. At this stage, it s pertinent to note the case of Takhaji Hira Ji Vs. Thakur Kuber Singh, Chaman Singh & Ors. 2001 6SCC 145, it was held that "Non-examination of independent witness by itself may not give rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. If already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would be only repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced on record. Non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such case the court ought to scrutinize the worth of evidence adduced. The court must assess itself whether in the circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witnesses and if so whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If witnesses already examined are reliable and testimony coming from their mouth is impeachable. The court can safely act upon it an influence by factum of non- examination of other witnesses."
53. There appear to be material contradictions in the defence taken by both accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused Mariya James completely denied knowledge of the complainant and even the foundational transaction of 1989, which goes contrary to the documentary evidence and consistent testimony of PW1 . In her Section 313 Cr.PC statement accused Mariya James stated that she never met accused Brij Mohan, didn't know him, and had sold the property to his father Satpal Gupta in 1989. Conversely the accused Brij Mohan Gupta relied heavily upon a chain of title document purportedly executed by the accused Mariya James in his favour. The statement under section 313 Cr.PC cannot be used as substantive evidence but in the present case the co-accused persons offered mutually destructive explanations demolishes the claim of the defence of having subsequently purchased the property from her in the year 1993.
Digitally
signed by ISRA
FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA ZAIDI
Date: Page 22 of 25
ZAIDI 2026.05.23
15:45:23
+0530
54. The defence evidence led by accused Brij Mohan Gupta does not further his case. His claim of bona fide purchase is not supported by any independent, credible witness testimony. Accused Brij Mohan Gupta claimed in his DW4 statement that he is a bona fide purchaser who got the property made freehold in his name. However, the complainant's husband was already in physical possession since 1989. Mariya James had no right left to transfer to accused Brij Mohan in 1993 because she had already transferred physical possession and received full consideration from Narender Kumar in 1989. Accused Brij Mohan's father Satpal was the was the property dealer to the said deal. The claim of accused Brij Mohan Gupta to be a bonafide purchaser does not suffice. Also, in the defence evidence accused Brij Mohan Gupta has examined the witness from Delhi Jal Board and the documents relied upon by him was marked as X and accused admitted in his cross examination by the Ld APP for the State that the said mobile number did not belong to him. No justification has been put forth by the accused regarding the anomaly. No such bill was produced which had his number. His inability to name the alleged witness to the transactions, lock of cogent explanations regarding execution of documents, mutation, and utility connections, further debilitates his version.
55. The documents i.e DW4/A, DW4/B and DW4/C (OSR) does not have bearing in the present case as they do not throw any light as to his claim of being a bona fide purchaser of the said property in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Furthermore, the accused undermined his own credibility by pleading ignorance regarding the adverse Civil Court Judgment passed against him concerning the property against which the appeal was also dismissed.
56. In the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC stand clearly established. The dishonest intention since the inception is clearly made out. The very act of executing a second transfer deed in respect of property already alienated shows a malicious design to create a false chain of title and confer wrongful benefit upon accused Brij Mohan Gupta.
Digitally signedFIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 23 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:45:47 +0530 Thereafter, the accused Brij Mohan Gupta by deceitful means attempted to assert a false title over the said property, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves as the conduct of the accused reflects dishonest intention to assert wrongful ownership over property already transferred, thereby causing deception and wrongful gain, knowingly well that complainant was in possession of the said property.
57. The ingredients of Section 468 IPC are also made out against accused persons as accused Mariya James had knowingly executed false documents without any authority, thereby committing forgery for the purpose of cheating in connivance with co accused Brij Mohan Gupta who consciously acted upon and derived benefit from such forged documents knowing fully well the property belonged to Narender Kumar and the original DDA documents of property were possessed by his father namely Satpal Gupta. The peripheral circumstances indicating knowledge on the part of accused Brij Mohan Gupta, thereby an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused persons that they had reason to believe that the documents were false and nevertheless used them as genuine, thereby attracting Section 471 IPC.
58. The evidence on record fully substantiates that both accused persons acted in furtherance of a common intention to cheat the complainant, Sushila Garg, and her late husband, Narender Kumar. Accused Mariya James divested herself from all the rights of the property in question for a sum of Rs 1,10,000/, delivered physical possession to the complainant's husband in 1989 dishonestly executed a second, fraudulent set of transfer documents dated 15.12.1993. The original DDA documents of said property were retained by the father of accused Brij Mohan Gupta he being the property dealer which accused Brij Mohan Gupta used deceptively to mutate DDA records, house tax receipts, and water and electricity bills in his name and used them as genuine which fortified by the unrebutted FSL expert testimony proving forgery. These circumstances, when cumulatively appreciated, point towards the guilt of the accused persons and are inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.
Digitally signedFIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 24 of 25 2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:45:55 +0530
59. The defence has not been able to shake the core of testimonies by the prosecution witness in cross-examination. Minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence relate only to peripheral aspects and does not affect the core of the prosecution case. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC. The accused Brij Mohan Gupta and Mariya James are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC.
Copy of this Judgment be given to the convicts today itself free of cost.
Pronounced in the open Court on 23.05.2026. Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date:
2026.05.23 ZAIDI 15:46:02 +0530 (Isra Zaidi) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 North East District/KKD/Delhi This judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears my signature.FIR No. 267/2007 State Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta Page 25 of 25