Delhi District Court
Rohini Wahi @ Roohani vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 5 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 21 OF 2023
CNR NO. DLST01-000674-2023
N THE MATTER OF
Rohini Wahi @ Roohani
W/o Late Sh. Faiz Murtaza Ali,
R/o Bahar Villa,
Zen Tea Estate Village Gopalpur,
Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh. ........ Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Mrs. Shahnaz Ali
W/o Late Sh. Faiz Murtaza Ali,
R/o 112, Uday Park, New Delhi.
3. Mrs. Sehar Ali Saini
W/o Sh. Bhimsham Saini,
R/o 48, Uday Park, New Delhi. ........ Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.05.2023
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 31.05.2023
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.06.2023
ORDER
1. Vide this Order, I shall dispose of the present revision CR No. 21/2023 Rohini Wahi @ Roohani Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 05.06.2023 Page No. 1 of 8 petition against Impugned Order dated 10.09.2021 in case FIR No. 01/2014 PS EOW South titled as State Vs State Vs Rajender Ghogra & Ors, pronounced by Ld. CMM (South) vide which cognizance was taken and summons were directed to be issued to the accused persons.
2. By way of present revision petition, the Impugned Order dated 10.09.2021 has been assailed on the ground that taking of cognizance by Ld. MM concerned is bad in law for want of territorial jurisdiction. Contention of the revisionist is that the alleged forged Will dated 14.04.2013 was executed by Late Sh. Faiz Murtaza Ali at Palampur, Himachal Pradesh. The civil suit challenging genuineness of this Will is also pending before Hon'ble Court of Himachal Pradesh. The complainant party had moved a complaint before the SSP, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh which was disposed of on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature. The complainant party withheld this fact and got another complaint lodged with EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi based on the same cause of action upon which the present FIR was wrongly registered. Now Ld. MM has taken cognizance of the offence even though he lacked the territorial jurisdiction to try the same. Reference has also been made to an Bail Order dated 26.07.2016 in Bail Applications No. 223/2016 (in respect of accused Rajinder Ghogra), No. 768/2016 (in respect of accused Pankaj Kumar Verma) and No. 1226/2016 (in respect of accused Mukesh Sood) of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein it has been observed as follows :
CR No. 21/2023 Rohini Wahi @ Roohani Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 05.06.2023 Page No. 2 of 8 "Learned APP for the State submits that signatures of Late Faiz Murtaza Ali on the Will have been compared with his other signatures and as per FSL signature on the Will does not match with the signature as appearing in other pages. The matter was inquired by the SPP of District Kangra, H.P., but no action was taken. On the basis of a similar complaint, action has been taken by the Delhi Police under the influence of complainants, even though it has not jurisdiction.
Keeping in view the above facts, it is ordered that in case of arrest, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/ Investigation Officer/SHO concerned."
3. It is further submitted by the revisionist that the complainant party has forged and created a false Will dated 19.06.2013 to create jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. It is further submitted that no other document was executed in pursuance of the alleged Will in Delhi or any other State in India. Further, the complainant also filed a Civil Suit bearing no. 4084/2013 challenging the genuineness of the said Will dated 14.04.2013 before Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon CR No. 21/2023 Rohini Wahi @ Roohani Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 05.06.2023 Page No. 3 of 8 following Judgments :
(i) Y. Ibrahim Ajith v Inspector of Police, Chennai (2004) 8 SCC 100;
(ii) Bhura Ram v State of Rajasthan (2008) 11 SCC 103;
(iii) Manish Ratan & Ors Vs State of M. P. & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 262;
(iv) Judgment dated 22.03.2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No. 463 of 2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10951 of 2019) titled as Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.
In Y Ibrahim Ajith's case, matter pertained to offence punishable u/s 498A and 406 IPC as also Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this case, respondent had left Nagercoil and came to Chennai and was staying there. It was held that since no cause of action arose at Chennai, therefore, the Magisterial Court at Chennai did not have the jurisdiction. It was observed that the expression 'cause of action', in the wider sense, meant the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceedings including not only the alleged infraction but also the infraction coupled with the right itself. In Bhura Ram's case as also Manish Ratan's case too, the case pertained to offence punishable u/s 498A/406 IPC. In all the above- said cases, concept of 'continuing offence' as laid down in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) Vs Prashant Kumar Mukherjee 1997 (5) SCC 30 CR No. 21/2023 Rohini Wahi @ Roohani Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 05.06.2023 Page No. 4 of 8 was reiterated. In Vijay Kumar Ghai's case, the material on record did not indicate any malafide intention on behalf of the appellants against the respondent which was clearly deductible from the MoU. Further, respondents had withheld a material fact from the Magisterial Court at Kolkata that a complaint u/s 156(3) of the respondents on the same cause of action had already been dismissed by the Magisterial Court at Delhi.
5. Ld. Additional PP for State as also Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 02 and 03 (complainants) have opposed the revision petition on the ground that some of the immovable properties which are the subject matter of the Will in question are situated in Delhi. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents no. 02 and 03 that the present matter also involves the Will dated 19.06.2013 executed in Delhi, Agreement pertaining to the year 2001 in respect of the Chirag Delhi property and Agreement to Sell executed in the year 2012 in respect of a property in Jharkhand and Nikahnama between the revisionist and Late Sh. Faiz Murtaza Ali. Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon following judgments :
(i) Purushottam Das Dalmia Vs State of West Bengal AIR 1961 SC 1589;
(ii) Banwarilal vs A Thomson AIR 1963 SC 1620;
(iii) Shew Kishan Agarwalla & Etc. Vs State & Ors. 2003 CRI. L. J. 1866 (2002 STPL 15250 Calcutta);
(iv) Judgment dated 20.02.2009 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. 2563/2007 & Crl. M.A. CR No. 21/2023 Rohini Wahi @ Roohani Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 05.06.2023 Page No. 5 of 8 9059/2007 titled as P. K. Thungon Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl. Rev. P. 32/2008 & Crl. M. A. 539/2008 titled as P. K. Thungon Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl. Rev. P. 52/2008 & Crl. M. A. 909/2008 titled as Mahesh Maheshwari Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Crl. M. C. 2587/2007 & Crl. M. A. 9162/2007 titled as Mahesh Maheshwari Vs Central Bureau of Investigation;
(v) Kaushik Chatterjee Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (2020) 10 SCC 92;
(vi) Jitender Singh Vs Ranjit Kaur 2001 STPL SC/AIR 2001 SC 784.
6. I have heard detailed arguments on the present revision petition and have perused the records carefully including the Trial Court Record, written submissions of the parties and case laws relied upon by them.
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has laid stress on Section 177 Cr.P.C. alone which provides as under :
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.--Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
CR No. 21/2023 Rohini Wahi @ Roohani Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 05.06.2023 Page No. 6 of 8
8. Sections 177 Cr.P.C. to 184 Cr.P.C. (Chapter XIII) deal with the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials. Section 179 Cr.P.C. provides as follows :
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.--When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
9. In the present case the alleged Will dated 14.04.2013 was created in respect of properties at various places in India including two immovable properties in Delhi. The act of creation of a false document i.e. forged Will cannot be seen independent of its consequence on the properties of Late Sh. Faiz Murtaza Ali. The forged Will has a direct bearing upon the properties of the testator and has resulted in the infraction of rights of the complainants in those properties. On the face of it, the forged Will dated 14.04.2013 as also the forged Nikahnama were aimed at robbing the respondents-complainants of their rights in the properties which are the subject matter of the alleged Will.
10. As already mentioned above, two immovable properties and certain bank accounts, shares and debentures of late Sh. Faiz Murtaza Ali are located in Delhi. Ld. Trial Court was, CR No. 21/2023 Rohini Wahi @ Roohani Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 05.06.2023 Page No. 7 of 8 therefore, well within its power to take cognizance in the present case. The case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the facts of the present case.
11. In view of above discussion, the Court is unable to find any illegality or perversity in the Impugned Order dated 10.09.2021 The present revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 5th DAY OF JUNE 2023 VRINDA Digitally signed by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date: 2023.06.05 16:55:14 +0000 (Vrinda Kumari) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CR No. 21/2023 Rohini Wahi @ Roohani Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 05.06.2023 Page No. 8 of 8