Delhi District Court
State vs . P C Gupta & Ors. on 30 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF PREETI PAREWA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE06,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR NO.10/1998, POLICE STATION TUGLAK ROAD UNDER SECTION : 465/466/467/468/471/34 IPC A. CIS No. of the Case : 44118/2016 B. Date of Institution : 07.05.1999 C. Date of Commission of Offence : On or before 09.01.1998 D. Name of the complainant : Late Smt. Vidya Grover W/o Late Sh. Ved Raj Grover.
E. Name of the Accused, his : 1) P C Gupta
Parentage & Addresses S/o Late Sh. B L Gupta
2) Kiran Gupta
W/o P C Gupta
Both residents of C10/1602,
Puri Pranayam Apartment,
Sector 8285, Greater Faridabad,
Haryana
3) Brij Bhushan Sharma
S/o G D Sharma
(ABSCONDER)
F. Offence complained of : U/s 465/466/467/468/471/34 IPC
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
H. Order reserved on : 31.10.2019
I. Date of Order : 30.11.2019
J. Final Order : Accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta
convicted U/s 468/471/120B IPC
FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 1 of 16
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case
1. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is that on or before 09.01.1998, accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta entered into criminal conspiracy and forged documents such as agreement to sale executed between Dharam Dev Grover (who had already expired on 15.05.1988 i.e. before the date of execution of the said documents) and P C Gupta, GPA between Dharam Dev Grover and Kiran Gupta, receipt issued by Dharam Dev Grover and possession letter issued by Dharam Dev Grover to obtain conveyance deed of property bearing number R808, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. Further, accused Kiran Gupta had furnished false Indemnity Bond, Undertaking and Affidavit before the concerned authority in respect of application made for conversion of the abovesaid property from leasehold to freehold. Further, that accused P C Gupta along with coaccused Bhushan Gupta entered into criminal conspiracy to commit offence punishable with imprisonment and criminally intimated the complainant to kill her. Accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta were chargesheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 465/466/467/468/471/34 IPC whereas accused Brij Bhushan Sharma was kept in the colomn no.2 (suspect) of the chargesheet. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 2 of 16
2. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.05.1999, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Predecessor Court. Further, vide the said order, accused P C Gupta, Kiran Gupta and Brij Bhushan Sharma were directed to be summoned, who appeared before the Court pursuant to execution of summons.
3. That vide order dated 19.12.2001, charges for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120B/465/466/467/468/471 IPC read with 120B IPC were framed against accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta by the learned Predecessor of the Court. Vide said order, additional charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506 (PartII) was framed against accused P C Gupta by the learned Predecessor of the Court. Further, charges for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and 506 (PartII) IPC were framed against accused Brij Bhushan Sharma. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. During the course of Prosecution Evidence, accused Brij Bhushan Sharma was declared an absconder vide order dated 05.09.2017 by the learned Predecessor Court.
5. In Prosecution Evidence, the Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case, however, the complainant could not be produced or FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 3 of 16 examined in the present case.
6. In the present case, the Prosecution has successfully proved the factum of death of Sh. Dharam Dev Grover by producing PW9 Prem Chand (Record Clerk, MCD, Karol Bagh, New Delhi) who exhibited the death record of Dharam Dev Grover as PW9/A and also by proving the FIR No.89/1988 PS Naraina, under Section 302 IPC Ex.PW4/A registered in respect of murder of Dharam Dev Grover.
7. Further, the Prosecution has produced PW1 Smt. Nirmal Bhandari who produced the original record of property bearing number R808, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi i.e. (A) conversion application of Kiran Gupta;
(B) Affidavit of Kiran Gupta;
(C) Completion Certificate;
(D) Photocopy of Agreement to Sell between Dharam Dev Grover and P C Gupta;
(E) Photocopy of GPA between Dharam Dev Grover and Kiran Gupta;
(F) Copy of letter dt. 05.01.1996 bearing no. L&DO/25/7817/18; (G) Indemnity Bond of Kiran Gupta dated 12.01.1996; (H) Undertaking of Kiran Gupta;
(I) Photocopy of receipt Dharam Dev Grover;
(J) Photocopy of possession letter of Dharam Dev Grover;
FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 4 of 16 (K) Letter no. L&DO/25/7817/CC/95/22 dt. 16.01.1996 to P C Gupta; (L) Conveyance Deed dated 16.01.1996;
(M) Mutation Letter of Dharam Dev Grover;
(N) Giftdeed of property made by Ishwar Dass Grover in favour of Dharam Dev Grover; and (O) Input Proforma of Dharam Dev Grover.
which have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/A (Colly).
8. PW10 Manju Grover, daughter of deceased complainant has also been examined by the Prosecution who has supported the case of the Prosecution and deposed that accused P C Gupta prepared documents on 30.06.1995 with Dharam Dev Grover who has already expired and presented the same in the Office of L & DO. That, false photograph of Late Dharam Dev Grover was also presented by him in the said office and signatures of Late Dharam Dev Grover were also forged by him and the conveyance deed was obtained in favour of accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta by manipulating the record. That, after issuance of conveyance deed, accused P C Gupta sent a notice of eviction to the complainant and PW10. She also deposed that accused P C Gupta and Brij Bhushan Sharma started incriminating her by passing threats to vacate the house within a week's time or face dire consequences such as kidnapping, rape, murder in the middle of the year 1997.
9. Further, the Prosecution has produced Inspector Jai Kishan who proved FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 5 of 16 the complaint Ex.PW2/A which was marked to him for vigilance inquiry and the documents Ex.PW1/A (Colly) from the office of L & DO collected by him pursuant to the same. He also proved his findings Ex.PW2/B.
10. PW3 R S Sinha, VigilancecumLegal Officer, L & DO Office, was also produced by the Prosecution, who proved seizure memo of documents pertaining to property bearing number R808, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi as Ex.PW3/A.
11. Personal search memo of accused Kiran Gupta Ex.PW5/A and that of accused P C Gupta Ex.PW6/A were proved by PW5 HC Archana Devi and PW6 Ct. Bhupender Singh respectively. The FIR in question was also proved by Duty Officer, now Inspector Parvati, PW7. Both the IOs of the present case were produced by the Prosecution to buttress their case, who deposed on the lines of investigation conducted by them.
12. Prosecution evidence in the present case was also closed vide order 03.10.2017.
13. Statement of the accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 23.12.2017 wherein they have denied the allegations and pleaded innocence and they further expressed no desire to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 23.12.2017.
FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 6 of 16
14. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and have carefully perused the material available on record. Written submissions filed by both sides also perused.
15. In a criminal trial, it is the Prosecution that is required to prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden has to be necessarily discharged by the Prosecution and this burden never shifts upon the accused.
16. The defence of accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta, in the present case, is that they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant in collusion with the officials of L & DO and they had entered into an agreement with Vijay Laxmi Chopra which was duly registered and proper consideration was paid in respect of the same and they have not forged any documents. Further that no original alleged forged document has been filed on record.
17. To prove the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC, which is defined under Section 463 IPC, the Prosecution is first required to prove that the accused persons "made any false document". Making of a false document is defined under Section 464 IPC. As per Section 464 IPC, a person is said to make a false document or false electronic record :
First.Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 7 of 16 part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed;
or Secondly.Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Explanation 1 A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2 The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 8 of 16 intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
18. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Ibrahim & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr decided 4th September, 2009 :
"the condition precedent for an offence under Section 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof)........ An analysis of Section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
19. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (I) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 9 of 16
(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or
(iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
20. As per the testimony of PW10, the signatures of Late Sh. Dharam Dev Grover on the said documents were forged as he had already expired in the year 1988. The factum of death of Late Sh. Dharam Dev Grover on 15.05.1988 was duly proved by the Prosecution and hence, it is proved that the signatures of Sh. Dharam Dev Grover on the photocopies were not made Sh. Dharam Dev Grover himself. However, the Prosecution did not produce any witness who was acquainted with the signatures of late Sh. Dharam Dev Grover and as such there is no evidence on record for signature comparison of Late Sh. Dharam Dev Grover to show that the same was forged by accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta. Nonetheless, the signatures of accused Kiran Gupta Mark Q1 on the conversion application of leasehold into freehold dated 23.11.1995, signatures of Kiran Gupta Mark Q2 and that of accused P C Gupta Mark Q14 on an application for conversion of leasehold property into freehold bearing no. 018003; signatures of accused Kiran Gupta Mark Q3 and Q4 on Affidavit, signatures of accused Kiran Gupta Mark Q5 and Q6 on another affidavit; signatures of accused Kiran Gupta Mark Q7 and that of accused P C Gupta Mark Q16 on Indemnity Bond; Signature of accused Kiran Gupta Mark Q8 and of accused P C Gupta Mark Q17 on an Undertaking; Signature of accused Kiran Gupta Mark Q9 to Q13 and of accused P C Gupta Mark Q18 to Q22 on conveyance deed including FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 10 of 16 schedule dated 16.01.1996 have matched their respective specimen signatures by virtue of FSL report Ex.PW12/E.
21. In the affidavit filed by accused Kiran Gupta dated 23.11.1995, it stated by her that she is a GPA holder of Dharam Dev Grover who is the original lessee of the property in question and is still alive and in the another affidavit filed by her, also dated 23.11.1995, she has solemnly affirmed that she is a GPA of the lessee of the property in question. Further, in the Indemnity Bond given by accused Kiran Gupta which has been witnessed by accused P C Gupta, she has stated that she is duly constituted attorney of Sh. Dharam Dev Grover and is competent to seek sale permission, executed the saledeed and get is executed on behalf of the lessee. Even further, in the Undertaking executed on 12.01.1996, accused Kiran Gupta has stated that she is the lessee / GPA of the property in question and the said document is also witnessed by accused P C Gupta. Furthermore, in the conveyance deed dated 16.01.1996, both signed by accused Kiran Gupta and P C Gupta, Sh. Dharam Dev Grover has been stated to be the present lessee, who entered into an agreement dated 03.06.1995 with accused P C Gupta and also executed irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of accused Kiran Gupta on 05.10.1995 and thus both accused made false statements on oath before the concerned authority. Thus, by virtue of abovesaid original documents which are on judicial record, it has been proved by the Prosecution that the accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 11 of 16 made or executed the abovesaid documents claiming to be authorized by Sh. Dharam Dev Gupta who had already expired way back in the year 1988.
22. Secondly, to prove the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC, the Prosecution is required to prove the abovesaid false documents were made by accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta with intent to cause damage or injury to the complainant or to public, or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with the property or with intent to commit fraud. In the present case, it has come in evidence that on the basis of abovementioned (as mentioned in paragraph no.21 of this judgment), the Office of L & DO had converted the property in question from lease hold to free hold in favour of the accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta and thereby injury was caused to the complainant, who along with her daughter were the occupants of the property in question. Thus, it stands proved by the Prosecution that accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta made the false documents in question (as mentioned in paragraph no.21 of this judgment) with intent to cause damage to the complainant and her daughter.
23. Now, in order to prove, offence punishable under Section 468 IPC, the Prosecution was required to prove that the "forgery" as defined under Section 463 IPC was intended to be used for the purpose of "cheating". The essential ingredients of cheating are as follows :
FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 12 of 16
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
24. In the present case, in the evidence led by the Prosecution, it has been proved that both accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta deceived the Office of L & DO and made a false representation, that is to say, accused P C Gupta represented to be the present lessee of Dharam Dev Grover (who had already expired in the year 1988) on the basis of agreement dated 03.06.1995 and accused Kiran Gupta represented to be the GPA holder of Dharam Dev Grover despite the fact that he has already expired on 15.05.1988. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubts in the present case.
25. Since the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC is the graver form of offence punishable under Section 465 IPC, both accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC.
FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 13 of 16
26. Use of a forged document as genuine also stands proved as on the basis of the forged documents (as mentioned in paragraph no.21 of this judgment), both accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta had got the conversion of the property in question to freehold from leasehold. Thus, accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
27. Further, to prove the offence punishable under Section 466 IPC, the Prosecution is required to prove that accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta forged documents which were purporting to be
(i) a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or
(ii) a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or
(iii) a certificate or document purporting to be made
(a) by a public servant in his official capacity, or
(b) an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment,
(c) or a power of attorney.
28. Furthermore, to prove offence punishable under Section 467 IPC, the Prosecution required to prove that the accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta forged a document which purports to be
(i) a valuable security or
(ii) a will,
(iii) or an authority to adopt a son, or
(iv) which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 14 of 16
(v) to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or
(vi) to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or
(vii) any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.
29. In the present case, neither such a document as enlisted in Section 466 IPC and 467 IPC has been produced by the Prosecution in original nor any evidence has been put forth to prove its forgery. In the absence of production of the original documents and any evidence to prove its forgery, the offences punishable under Section 466/467 IPC cannot be said to be proved by the Prosecution. Thus, both accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta stand acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 466 IPC and 467 IPC.
30. Also, as the documents mentioned in paragraph no.21 of this judgment bear signatures of both accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta and the application for conversion to freehold from leasehold of the property in question was made by them, an agreement to commit an offence stands proved by way of circumstantial evidence in the present case and thus, offence punishable under Section 120B IPC also stands proved in the present case and consequently both accused P C Gupta and Kiran Gupta stand convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.
FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 15 of 16
31. As regard offence punishable under Section 506 (PartII) IPC, the Prosecution could not produce the complainant to testify with respect to the said allegation. PW10 Manju Grover, daughter of complainant, in her crossexamination could not disclose the date or time when the alleged threats were extended to her or her mother. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that an alarm was caused to her or the complainant. It is settled law that mere threats do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. Resultantly, in the opinion of this Court, the Prosecution has failed to prove the commission of the said offence in the present case. Consequently, accused P C Gupta stands acquitted for the said charge.
32. Renotify for arguments on the quantum of sentence on 13.12.2019 at 2 pm. Announced in the open (PREETI PAREWA) Court on 30th November, 2019 MM06 / NDD / PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI FIR No.10/1998 State Vs. P C Gupta & Ors. PS Tuglak Road Page No. 16 of 16