Delhi District Court
State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Yamin S/O Mahruddin on 14 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-6, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION No. 55/2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor,
New Delhi
........Revisionist
Versus
Yamin S/o Mahruddin
R/o H.No. 84, Near Mata
Chowk, Chattarpur, New Delhi
.......... Respondent
Instituted on : 06.02.2020
Reserved on : 11.07.2023
Pronounced on : 14.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present revision petition U/s 397 Cr.P.C filed on behalf of revisionist/State praying for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2019 of Ld. Trial Court in case titled as "State Vs. Yamin" relating to case FIR No. 409/2018, PS Fatehpur Beri.
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 1 / 11 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.14
17:26:44
+0530
An FIR No. 409/2018 was lodged at PS Fatehpur Beri on 23.09.2018 for the offences U/s 420/120B IPC on the basis of complaint of Ms. Soma Devi. After completion of investigation, against the respondent, charge- sheet was filed before Ld. Trial Court on 23.10.2019. Vide order dated 22.11.2019, the respondent was discharged for the alleged offences U/s 239 Cr.P.C. That order is being challenged in these proceedings.
3. Arguments heard.
4. It has been argued by Ld. Addl. PP for State that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly discharged the respondent herein as the material on record was not properly appreciated. It was submitted that the ground taken by Ld. Trial Court to justify its order that no FSL report confirming that the respondent had signed the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc. dated 18.06.2014 has come on record, is not tenable in law as FSL report is not the only mode to prove the signature of a person on a document. It was submitted that such signature can be proved by way of other modes also as provided in Indian Evidence Act including by way of testimonies of witnesses who have seen him signing the documents. It has been further submitted that the second ground taken by Ld. Trial that the State has not been able to recover from the respondent any ill-gotten money is also not sufficient to throw away the case of prosecution as the recovery of cheating amount is not a sine qua non for making out a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy pertaining to offence of cheating. It has been submitted that Ld. Trial Court was only required to see as to whether a prima facie case was made out against the respondent on the basis of material on record and the prosecution should Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 2 / 11 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.14
17:26:57
+0530
have been granted the opportunity to prove its case. He has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.
5. No arguments were adduced on behalf of respondent despite opportunities. Written submissions were furnished on his behalf on 11.07.2023. As per the written submissions, it has been submitted that it has not come on record as to who was the actual owner of the property in question. It has been further submitted that the respondent was an illiterate man who only knows how to sign and he had put his signatures on the documents in question on being asked to do so by Mr. Ramesh Chander as he was promised Rs. 2,000/- per signature. It has been further submitted that a power of attorney was also executed between Mr. Ramesh Chander and the respondent giving him power to execute the property documents and same is with him only and the copy thereof was not provided to the respondent. It has been further submitted that no FSL report has been placed on record. It has been further submitted that the respondent is an illiterate person and he himself is a victim of the conspiracy of one Mr. Manoj (who is stated to be in illegal possession of the property in question) and Mr. Ramesh Chander. It has been further submitted that date, time and place pertaining to alleged criminal conspiracy has not come on record. Further, investigating agency was not able to recover any amount from him. It has been further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record.
Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 3 / 11
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.14
17:27:06
+0530
7. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 22.11.2019 is being reproduced below for ready reference:-
"3. Alongwith the charge sheet, the State, acting through IO, SI Rajnish Kumar, despite taking the specimen signatures of the accused, Yamin, on 27.09.2019, has not placed on record any FSL Report, confirming that the accused had signed the GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit ect. dated 18.06.2014 which were allegedly used by Ramesh to commit the offence of cheating (as punishable under Section 420 of IPC) qua the complainant, Smt. Soma Devi. Also during investigation, the State acting through the IO, SI Rajnish Kumar, has not been able to recover from the accused Yamin any ill-gotten money viz. part of Rs. 6,17,000/- paid by the complainant, Smt. Soma Devi.
4. In light of the aforesaid scenario and taking note of law regarding discharge, as expounded in State vs. Arun Kumar, 2014 SCC Online, SC 1018, I am of the considered opinion that this Court does not have sufficient material to charge the accused Yamin with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/120B IPC. Thus, the accused Yamin is discharged qua the said offences, as per Section 239 of Cr.P.C, 1973."
8. Record shows that FIR in question was lodged on the complaint of Ms. Soma Devi who alleged that she had purchased a plot in H-Block, Aya Nagar, measuring 50 Sq. Yds. from one Mr. Ramesh Chander in the year 2014 and she made a payment of Rs. 6,17,000/- to him by way of cheque.
Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 4 / 11
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.14
17:27:14
+0530
Thereafter, the documents pertaining to that property were executed in her favour in the name of respondent. When she asked Mr. Ramesh Chander as to why the documents are bearing the name of respondent when the payment has been received by him, he told her that the land belongs to him and only the documents were being executed by respondent Yamin. Thereafter, a boundary wall was constructed around her plot by Mr. Ramesh Chander. In January, 2018, when she visited her plot, she saw that one Manoj was present there who claimed that the plot belongs to him. He also threatened her not to visit the said plot again. When she told the facts to Ramesh Chander, he told her that the plot has been illegally occupied by Manoj at the instance of one Jagdish @ Jaggi. When she told him that she had given the amount to him and it was his responsibility to clear the illegal possession or to return her money, he told her that he can do so or can give her another plot if she is ready to give him another sum of Rs. 1 lac. On this, she was convinced that Ramesh Chander has hatched the conspiracy alongwith the respondent herein, Jagdish @ Jaggi and Manoj and has cheated her hard earned money.
9. After registration of FIR, investigation was taken up. During the course of the investigation, matter was transferred to Crime Branch vide order dated 28.08.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. No clear reply was received from the Office of SDM, Mehrauli qua the ownership of property in question on the basis of revenue record, however, it seems that in any case, the property was not owned by Mr. Ramesh Chander. The payments made by the complainant to Ramesh chander have been verified from her Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 5 / 11 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.07.14 17:27:21 +0530 bank account statement. It has been mentioned in the charge-sheet that accused Ramesh Chander & Jagdish @ Jaggi had not joined the investigation till then and that admitted handwriting of the complainant as well as respondent shall be sent to FSL alongwith the documents allegedly executed by them pertaining to property in question for expert opinion. The charge-sheet for offence U/s 420/120B IPC was filed against the respondent before Ld. Trial Court on 23.10.2019.
10. Vide order dated 22.11.2019, Ld. CMM (South) discharged the respondent primarily on two grounds:-
(i) That the IO despite taking the specimen signatures of the respondent on 27.09.2019, has not placed on record any FSL report confirming that the documents pertaining to property in question dated 18.06.2014 were in fact executed by him.
(ii) That the State has failed to recover the alleged payment made by the complainant from him.
11. Admittedly, signatures of the respondent were obtained by investigating agency on 27.09.2019 and no FSL result confirming that the signatures on the alleged documents were of the respondent only was placed on record alongwith charge-sheet or till passing of the impugned order by Ld. CMM. The FIR in question also does not contain anything to suggest that the signatures on the documents were so done by the respondent as in the FIR, it has been simply written that the co-accused Ramesh had handed over the property documents in the name of respondent Yamin. No other role has been attributed to him in the FIR.
Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 6 / 11
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.14
17:27:43
+0530
12. There are subsequent statements of witnesses Savitri Devi and Sushil Kumar U/s 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.09.2019 as per which, the documents were so signed by the respondent in their presence. However, the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant Smt. Soma Devi dated 30.09.2019 does not contain anything to that effect rather it has been so written there that co-accused Ramesh had prepared the documents and had brought the same. In these facts, insistence of Ld. Trial Court on FSL result for confirming that the signatures on the documents in question were in fact so done by the respondent, cannot be faulted with. More so, when the consideration amount was admittedly paid to co-accused Ramesh Chander only.
13. There cannot be any dispute to the legal proposition that FSL result is not the only way to prove signatures of a person on a document and that same can be proved by other means also including by way of testimony of witnesses who had seen that person signing the document. However, the evidence on record is not sufficient to even prima facie show that the signatures on the documents in question in the name of respondent were so done by him only.
14. It is worth mentioning that Ld. Trial Court has specifically observed in the impugned order that the respondent can be arrested and prosecuted again, in case further incriminating evidence is found against him. Admittedly, the investigation was still pending in this matter against remaining accused persons on the date of impugned order however, the Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 7 / 11 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.07.14 17:27:48 +0530 State instead of expediting the investigation and thereafter prosecuting the respondent again if sufficient material was available against him, chose to file present revision petition. Further investigation has not been concluded till date.
15. It is settled law that while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, this Court can interfere only when the impugned order is perverse or untenable in law. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 wherein it has been observed as under :-
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court.The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 8 / 11 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.07.14
17:27:54
+0530
16. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant interference from this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
17. Before parting with this order, it is to be noted that apart from this case, four other cases of similar nature against same set of offenders were registered vide FIR No. 402/2018, 408/2018, 400/2018 and 401/2018 at PS Fatehpur Beri. On a petition moved by one Mr. Manoj Kumar, Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed that the investigation pertaining to all the five cases be transferred to Crime Branch, Delhi vide order dated 28.08.2019. Such an order was passed by Hon'be High Court under a belief that Crime Branch will be in a better position to investigate the cases and to unearth the entire conspiracy. However, it seems that needful has not been done till date. Perusal of charge-sheet shows that the Crime Branch failed to join prime accused Ramesh Chander in the investigation and it has been simply written there that legal proceedings against him and another co-accused Joginder @ Jogi would be conducted as per law. In the impugned order, Ld. CMM has directed DCP, Crime to examine as to whether there was any laxity on the part of IO/SI Rajnish Kumar in pursuing the investigation against accused Ramesh and as to whether the IO should have sent the specimen signatures of respondent to FSL for expert opinion before filing the charge-sheet in the Court.
Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 9 / 11
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.07.14
17:28:25
+0530
18. During the pendency of present proceedings, a report was called from worthy DCP, Crime as to what action has been taken in pursuance to said order. On the date fixed, one SI Tanish Kumar appeared from Crime Branch and stated orally that such an order was never received in the Office of DCP, Crime. It was also submitted by him that further investigation was still pending. No report in writing was filed in this regard including to indicate as to what is the progress of further investigation after more than 42 months of the impugned order. It is worth mentioning that present FIR was registered in September, 2018 but unfortunately, nothing substantial has been done till date i.e., even after lapse of a period of more than 4 years. The complainant seems to be a poor lady who parted with her life long savings in a hope that she will be able to secure a small piece of land in National Capital of Delhi for herself/her family members. She must have made the complaint in question before police in the hope that she will be provided justice however, her hope would have shattered by now as there is virtually no progress in the investigation even after 4 years of registration of FIR. It appears that Crime Branch was established by Delhi Police so that complicated cases are investigated by dedicated officers who are experts in this field so as to ensure expeditious and quality investigation. In this case, Crime Branch seems to have failed on both the counts. Such instances do shake the trust of common man in public institutions.
19. In these circumstances, copy of this order be sent to worthy Commissioner of Police. It is expected that the queries raised by Ld. Trial Court shall be given due attention.
Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 10 / 11
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.07.14
17:28:31
+0530
Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.07.14
17:28:39 +0530
Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta)
Court on 14h July, 2023 Additional Sessions Judge-06,
South, Saket Courts, New Delhi
Cr. Rev 55/2020 State Vs. Yamin Page no. 11 / 11