Delhi District Court
Harvinder Singh vs State on 12 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 12/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Harvinder Singh
S/o Sh. Chanan Singh,
R/o 0-51 Pratap Nagar, Delhi
........ Revisionist
Versus
State
........ Respondent
Instituted on : 23.01.2021
Reserved on : 04.07.2023
Pronounced on : 12.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of present revision petition u/s 397/399 Cr.P.C. preferred by Mr. Harvinder Singh against order on charge dated 20.10.2020 and formal charge so framed against him by Ld. MM-04/South in case titled as State Vs. Tripurari Prasad & Ors. pertaining to FIR No.406/2011, PS Hauz Khas.
2. Briefly stated, the facts as per record are as under:-
Cr. Rev. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 1 / 9Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.06.12
17:41:22
+0530
An FIR for the offences under Section 467/468/471/120B/34 IPC was lodged at PS Hauz Khas on 04.12.2011 on the complaint of Inspector Neeraj Kumar after apprehension of one Tripurari Prasad and Harvinder Singh (revisionist herein) with some forged and fabricated cheques on the basis of secret information. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against 11 accused persons including against the revisionist for the offences u/s 420/467/468/120B/34 IPC. After hearing arguments from both the sides alongwith material on record, Ld. Trial Court passed a detailed order on charge on 20.10.2020 and charge was framed against the revisionist on same day for the offences under Section 474-II IPC, Section 467 r/w 120B IPC, Section 468 IPC r/w 120B IPC, Section 471 IPC r/w 120B IPC and Section 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC. The order on charge and framing of formal charge is being challenged in these proceedings.
3. Arguments heard.
4. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the prosecution has not attributed any specific act or omission to him. It was submitted that he did not prepare any forged document and none of the alleged forged documents was bearing his signature. It was submitted that he is not even the beneficiary in the present case as admittedly, no payment was received by him in any manner whatsoever. It was submitted that in these facts, charge for the offences in question could not have been framed against him and that Ld. Trial Cr. Rev. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 2 / 9 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.06.12 17:41:32 +0530 Court fell in error in doing so. He has relied upon following judgments:-
(i) Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. Crl. Appeal No.1695/2009 (SC).
(ii) Prashant Bhaskar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Crl. Revision Petition No.385/2009 (Delhi HC).
(iii) Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj & Anr. Etc. Crl. Appeal No.359-360/2010 (SC).
5. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for State that Ld. Magistrate has passed a detailed order on the point of charge and that there was no illegality in the same. It was submitted that the prosecution has been rightly granted an opportunity to prove its case and that no case for discharge of the revisionists is made out.
6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record.
7. As mentioned earlier, Ld. Magistrate passed a detailed order on charge on 20.10.2020 wherein the material on record against each accused was separately discussed. The relevant portion of the order pertaining to revisionist herein is being reproduced below for ready reference:-
"8.2 Harvinder Singh - It was argued on behalf of accused Harvinder Singh that except the disclosure statement of co-accused persons and the confession Cr. Rev. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 3 / 9 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.06.12 17:41:40 +0530 statement of the accused himself, no evidence against him was collected during the investigation. It is submitted that these statements are not admissible in law. Again there was no amount of money which was ever received in the bank account of the accused and accordingly it is prayed that there no charge is made out against the accused and he is entitled to be discharged.
8.2.1 Now, coming to charge-sheet, it can be seen that as per the seizure memo one blank cheque bearing no. 960699 of LIC, Meerut drawn on Indian Oversees Bank was recovered from possession of accused Harvinder Singh. Certainly, at this stage the recovery of the cheque from possession of the present accused cannot be questioned and is a matter of evidence. Now, as per record, information was given by the alleged drawer i.e. LIC that the cheque bearing no.960699 was issued by LIC for amount of Rs.2093/- in favour of one Vibhas Rastogi and therefore apparently at this stage, it is clear that said cheque recovered from the possession of the accused is a forged document. Moreover, burden was again upon the accused only to explain why he was in possession of said blank cheque, as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused are not of any help and strong case is made out to frame the charge against the accused u/s 474-II IPC, as being found in possession of a forged document as described under Section 467 IPC."
8. Perusal of record shows that as mentioned in the impugned order, present FIR was registered on 04.12.2011 after accused Tripurari Prasad and revisionist herein were apprehended from Siri Fort parking, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. One blank signed cheque of LIC bearing no.960699 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank was recovered from the Cr. Rev. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 4 / 9 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.06.12 17:41:48 +0530 possession of revisionist. It has come on record that said cheque was forged and the original cheque bearing the same number was issued by LIC for a sum of Rs.2093/- in favour of one Vibhas Rastogi. Record also shows that after their apprehension, co-accused Arshad also turned up there for delivery of fresh fake cheque and their interrogation led to arrest of other co-accused persons, namely, Devinder Singh Mendhiratta, Hardeep and Amandeep. Another co-accused Zameer (father of accused Arshad) was arrested later on at their instance and remaining accused persons were arrested from Meerut at his instance. The allegation against all the accused persons is that they forged cheques of different organizations by using high resolution scanner & printer alongwith special quality papers by hatching a criminal conspiracy. Those cheques were thereafter encashed in different bank accounts and the proceeds thereof used to be equally divided between the accused persons based in Delhi and those based in Meerut. The revisionist herein seems to be an important link in the entire conspiracy hatched to commit the alleged offences. The recovery of a forged cheque from his possession is sufficient to make out a prima facie case for the offence u/s 474 Part-II as it can be safely assumed in the given facts that he was having the knowledge that the cheque was forged and was also having the intention to fraudulently use the same as genuine. The burden to prove otherwise is obviously on him u/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and he shall have the opportunity to do the same during trial.
Cr. Rev. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 5 / 9
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
SUNIL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.06.12
17:41:56
+0530
9. Apart from the offence u/s 474-II IPC, the revisionist has been charged with for the offences under Section 467 r/w 120B IPC, Section 468 IPC r/w 120B IPC, Section 471 IPC r/w 120B IPC and Section 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC. As mentioned earlier, the revisionist is part of the larger conspiracy hatched to commit the offences u/s 467/468/471/420 IPC. The argument of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that no specific role qua commission of these offences has been attributed to him and that he even was not a beneficiary of proceeds of crime as there is no evidence to that effect also on record, is of no help to the case of revisionist as Ld. Magistrate in the impugned order has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd.
Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal, Crl. Appeal No.1114/2001 wherein Hon'ble Court has held that there cannot be any direct evidence in a case of conspiracy and that the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the offenders expressly agreed to do an illegal act. It was further held that the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Such an agreement seems to be existing in the present case and for that reason, the revisionist has been rightly charged with the offences in question. The judgments being relied upon by the revisionist are distinguishable on facts.
10. It is to be noted as to whether the prosecution story is true or false, can be ascertained at the stage of trial only when the prosecution would be obligated to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the Cr. Rev. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 6 / 9 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.06.12 17:42:05 +0530 Court has to see as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused on the basis of material on record or not. Trial Court is not expected to minutely scrutinize the material on record at that stage to see if it is sufficient for conviction or not. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs. State ( NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561 in which it was held as under:-
"11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At this stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
12. Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa and Ors. 1996 Cri.LJ 2448 in following words:-
"If on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, Cr. Rev. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 7 / 9 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.06.12 17:42:13 +0530 though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
13. 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:-
".....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. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 8 / 9
Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.06.12 17:42:21 +0530
14. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that Ld. Magistrate has passed the impugned order after considering all the relevant facts and there is no illegality so as to justify interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision Digitally signed petition stands dismissed. SUNIL by SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2023.06.12 17:42:28 +0530 Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta) Court on 12.07.2023 Additional Sessions Judge-06, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi Cr. Rev. 12/2021 Harvinder Singh Vs. State Page No. 9 / 9