Delhi District Court
Sh. Ghanshyam Dass vs Smt. Anjana Chokra on 28 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI03
(PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision no.31/2014 (8054/2016)
CNR No. DLST010003912014
Sh. Ghanshyam Dass
s/o Late Sh. Parmanand
r/o 451, Sector 14, Gurgaon
Haryana.
.........Revisionist
Vs.
1. Smt. Anjana Chokra
w/o Sh. Ashok Chokra
r/o B17, Kailash Apartments
Lala Lajpat Rai Road
New Delhi
2. Sh. Narottam Naresh Walia
s/o Sh. Devi Ram Walia
r/o 96C, Khanpur Sainik Farms
New Delhi110072
3. Smt. Swaran Chadha
w/o Late Col. Updesh Singh Chadha
r/o A103, Saket, New Delhi110017
4. Sh. Jitender Arya
s/o sh. Sat Prakash
r/o B201, Greater Kailash
New Delhi.
Also at:
EA165, Inderpuri, New Delhi.
CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 1/18
5. Smt. Namrata Gupta
w/o Sh. Harish Gupta
r/o 83F, Kamla Nagar
New Delhi.
6. Sh. Satpal Gupta
s/o Sh. Tara Chand Gupta
r/o 1497/B, Wazir Nagar
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
Also At:
A1876/9, Gurudwara Road
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
7. Sh. J.R Gangwani
r/o W81, Anupam Garden
village SaidUlAjaib, New Delhi.
8. Smt. Yashi Jaspal
w/o Sh. S.S Jaspal
r/o 96C, Sainik Farm
Khanpur, New Delhi
Also at:
D50, Saket
New Delhi110017.
9. Sh. S.K Behl
s/o Sh. K.L Behl
r/o 154C, Hauz Rani
New Delhi.
10.Smt. Nilu Gupta @Neetu Gupta
w/o Sh. P.C Gupta
r/o M70, Saket
New Delhi110017
11.Smt. Kusum Sharma
w/o Sh. Subhash Sharma
r/o YZ6, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi110023
CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 2/18
12.Sh. Tula Ram
s/o Sh. Baldey Singh
r/o A36, Bara Mohalla
Khanpur, New Delhi62.
13.Sh. Ashok Sharma
s/o Sh. H. S Sharma
r/o 1441/13, Gobind Puri
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Also at:
3A, Begampur Park
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
14. Sh. S.P.S Anand
s/o Sh. R.S Anand
r/o A9/14, Vasant Vihar
New Delhi57.
15. Sh. Manvinder Pal Singh
s/o Sh. Khajan Singh
r/o E3, Greater Kailash
New Delhi
16. Sh. Harinder Singh
s/o Sh. Khajan Singh
r/o E3, Greater Kailash
New Delhi.
17. M/s S.K Finance Corporation
through its partner
Sh. Harinder Singh
36, Defence Colony Flyover,
New Delhi24.
18. Smt. Shobha Arya
w/o Sh. Mahender Kumar
r/o A27/7A, Tilak Nagar
New Delhi.
CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 3/18
19. Sh. Mohan Lal Kapoor
s/o Sh. Jaggan Nath Kapoor
r/o M175, Greater KailashII
New Delhi.
20. Sh. Vijay Mehra
r/o W71, Anupam Garden
Sainik Farms
SaidUlAjaib, New Delhi.
21. Sh. Mahesh Kumar
r/o W71, Anupam Garden
Sainik Farms
SaidUlAjaib, New Delhi
22. Sh. Ashok Kumar Daga
r/o H.No.7/18, Kalkaji Extn.
New Delhi
23. Sh. Mahender Kumar
r/o W71, Anupam Garden
Village SaidUlAjaib
New Delhi
24. Sh. Vinod Kumar Kapoor
r/o M175, Greater KailashII
New Delhi.
25. Sh. Akash @ Kittu
s/o Sh. Sikender Lal
r/o D56, Saket, New Delhi.
26. Sh. T.P Malik
r/o W71, Anupam Garden
Sainik Farms, SaidUlAjaib, New Delhi.
27. Sh. S.S Jaspal
r/o 96C, Sainik Farm
Khanpur, New Delhi.
Also at:
1/80, Sainik Farm, New Delhi.
CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 4/18
28. Sh. Nathu Ram Meena
r/o W71/B, Anupam Garden
Sainik Farms, SaidUlAjaib
New Delhi.
29. Sh. Ishfaque Meer
r/o W71/B, Anupam Garden
Sainik Farms, SaidUlAjaib,
New Delhi.
30. Sh. Upender Singh
r/o W71/B, Anupam Garden
Sainik Farms, SaidUlAjaib,
New Delhi.
Also At:
VillageNeb Sarai
New Delhi.
31. Sh. Surender Pal Singh
s/o Sh. Harnam Singh
r/o G18, Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi.
32. Sh. Mahinder Pal Singh
r/o A29, Kirti Nagar Indl. Area
New Delhi.
33. Sh. Raj Kumar Daga
s/o Sh. M.D Daga
r/o C7, South ExtnII
New Delhi.
34. Sh. Raj Pal
r/o Raju Park, Khanpur
New Delhi.
35. Sh. Jagdish Pawar
r/o C44, Freedom Fighter Colony
Neb Sarai, Village SaidUlAjaib
New Delhi.
CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 5/18
36. Sh. Hitesh Sharma
s/o Sh. R.P Sharma
r/o 102C, Madhuwan Enclave
Rohtak Road, New Delhi.
Also at:
C134, Dayanand Colony,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
37. Sh. R.S Ahlawat
r/o B39, Panchsheel Enclave
New Delhi.
38. Sh. Davinder Singh Negi
s/o Sh. Sohan Singh Negi
r/o E8, A/6, Krishna Nagar
Delhi.
39. Sh. Hari Krishan Meena
r/o near Country Club
Sainik Farm, New Delh.
40. Dr. Aadil Singh
r/o Quarter no.39, TypeIII
Gandhi Nagar, P.S Geeta Colony
Delhi.
Also at
Khasra NO.116
village SaidUlAjaib
Anupam Garden, Sainik Farms
New Delhi.
41. Smt. Kamal Sachdeva
w/o Late Sh. K.L Sachdeva
r/o C2/62, Safdarjung Development Area
New Delhi.
42. State (FIR no.358/96, PSMehrauli, ND)
....... Respondents
CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 6/18
Date of filing of revision : 24.07.2014
Date of allocation : 25.07.2014
Arguments concluded on : 18.02.2017
Date of order : 28.02.2017
Revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC against the order dated
03.06.2014 passed by Ld.CMM, South, Saket, New Delhi in case
bearing no.358/96 titled as 'State Vs. Anjana Chokkar & Ors..',
PSMehrauli
ORDER
1. Present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 vide which all the respondentsaccused were discharged.
2. The case of the complainant is that Late Sh. Chuttan being the owner sold his entire land held by him to Sh. Parmanand (father of the complainant/petitioner) vide two registered saledeeds dated 15.09.1980 registered on 20.09.1980. It is alleged that accused no.1 Sudhan Singh (now deceased) took unauthorized possession of land measuring 19 bigha and 16 biswas. Sh. Chuttan and Sh. Chandgi filed suit for possession against accused no.1 on 25.04.1978 u/s 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Being unauthorized occupant in cultivatory possession, accused no.1 Sudhan Singh could only cultivate the land till his dispossession in execution of the decree u/s 84 of the DLR Act that may be passed in favour of the LRs of late Sh. Parmanand. He had no right to use the land for any other non CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 7/18 agricultural purpose or to alienate in part thereof to any person. It is alleged that in collusion with accused no.2 to 11 (named in the complaint) and without knowledge and consent of the complainant, accused no.1 dishonestly started carving the land into plots to grab property and started selling the same to various persons including the accused mentioned in the complaint. While executing such documents, accused no.1 represented himself to be the owner of the property in question. The complainant prayed for registration of FIR against all the accused u/s 419, 420,468, 471, 506 and 34 IPC. FIR was directed to be registered. Chargesheet was filed after completion of the investigation. One supplementary chargesheet also filed. Vide the impugned order on the point of charge, Ld. Trial Court discharged all the accused.
3. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court has erred in holding that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. Trial Court ought to have applied the test of prima facie case. At the time of framing of charge, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into. The criminal conspiracy and complicity between the accused persons has to be inferred from the circumstances which give rise to a strong suspicion that accused persons were party to the commission of the offence of cheating and forgery. Further, the criminal law and civil law remedy can be pursued simultaneously in diverse situations. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court ignored that CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 8/18 accused no.1 Sudhan Singh had indulged in fraudulent sale and purchase of land with other accused persons for far lesser price than the prevailing market rate despite knowing that he and thereafter subsequent transferors had no right to transfer the land of the complainant and his brothers. It is also submitted that raising the false claim by way of a title document amounts to forgery. It is further submitted that there is sufficient material on record to show that there was an agreement between the accused person to do an unlawful act with the object to make wrongful gain. It is further averred that the judgment Mohd. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2009) 8, SC cases 751 has been wrongly applied by the Trial Court whereas the facts of both the cases were distinct. On these grounds, the revisionistcomplainant has sought to set aside the impugned order.
4. The revision has been vehemently opposed by the respondents no.1 to 41.
5. I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the record carefully including the trial court record and the written submissions.
6. At the stage of framing of charge, ld. trial court considered the submissions of the parties and held that material on record was not sufficient to frame charge u/s 420 IPC against accused persons. In the instant revision petition, arguments have also been addressed qua offences u/s 467, 468, 506, 441 IPC. Ld. Counsel for revisionist CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 9/18 complainant also argued that Mohd. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2009) 8, SC cases 751 has no application in the present case as the facts were different.
7. The issue under consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds for framing charge against the accused persons for the offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 506 and 441 IPC or not and whether the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 of discharging all the accused suffers any illegality.
8. The revisionistcomplainant Ghanshyam Dass is one of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Parmanand who had purchased the agricultural land including the lands in question from the original bhumidar Sh. Chuttan vide two saledeeds both dated 15.09.1980 for 36 bigha 12 biswa and 5 bigha 5 biswa respectively. The total agricultural land of 41 bigha 17 biswa fell in khasra no.394/324225/36 (116), 395/326327/40 (210) and 267 (019), village Saidullajaib, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. At the time of execution of these saledeeds, two eviction petitions u/s 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. were pending in the Court of SDM, New Delhi in respect of the agricultural land in question. These two petitions u/s 84 of the DLR Act were filed by Sh. Chuttan against Sh. Sudhan and Sh. Mam Chand respectively. The present case pertains to the controversy related to late Sh. Sudhan who was summoned as accused no.1 in the instant case.
9. In the petition u/s 84 DLR Act filed on 25.04.1978 against Sh.
CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 10/18 Sudhan, Late Sh. Chuttan alleged that Sh. Sudhan had taken forcible possession of the land bearing khasra no.71 measuring 5 bighas 17 biswa and khasra no.139 measuring 10 bigha 4 biswa in village Saidullajaib, Teshil Mehrauli. It is noted that on the issue of impleadment of legal heirs of Sh. Parmanand in these petitions u/s 84 of the DLR Act, the parties went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. These eviction petitions u/s 84 of the DLR Act filed initially by Sh. Chuttan are still pending.
10. In the meantime, Sh. Sudhan filed a suit bearing no.126/KA/86 u/s 85 of the DLR Act before the Revenue Assistant/SDM, New Delhi for declaration of bhumidari rights in his favour. This case was filed against Sh. Chuttan. The exparte order dated 09.10.87 was passed in favour of Sudhan Singh and he was declared to be a bhumidar in respect of the agricultural lands in question. The appeal against this exparte order was filed u/s 185 of the DLR Act in the court of Additional Collector, Delhi bearing appeal no.18/95 titled as 'Ghanshyam & other legal heirs of late Sh. Parmanand Vs. Sudhan Singh'. Vide order dated 02.12.96, the Additional Collector set aside the exparte order dated 09.10.87 on the ground that respondent Sudhan Singh had concealed the fact of the pending litigation u/s 84 DLR Act against him. It was further observed that he had filed petition u/s 84 DLR Act against Sh. Chuttan Singh, the original bhumidar who was left with no interest over the suit land after transferring the same and Sudhan Singh did not implead the legal CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 11/18 heirs of late Sh. Parmanand as party in the petition.
11. Coming back to the instant case,19 accused including one company were sought to be summoned u/s 420/120 B IPC vide the main chargesheet. In the complaint, on the basis of which instant FIR was directed to be registered u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC, names of 11 accused were mentioned. A supplementary challan was also filed in which 20 accused were mentioned in column no.2 which pertains to accused persons not sent up for trial, whether arrested or not arrested, including absconders (show absconders in red ink). It was observed by the IO that the accused mentioned in the supplementary challan were the bonafide purchasers. Vide order dated 05.05.2001, the Trial Court observed that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the accused sent up for trial by the police. However, vide order dated 05.07.2002, all the accused mentioned in the complaint of the complainant as well as supplementary chargesheet were also summoned by the Trial Court. The trial court record shows that the contention of the accused persons was that the accused mentioned in supplementary challan were summoned inadvertently.
12. I have carefully perused various documents pertaining to sale and purchase of portions of the land in question. Sudhan Singh had sold the agricultural land in dispute to various purchasers. Certain sale documents and assignment deeds executed by late Sh. Sudhan Singh in favour of certain purchasers like Ms. Anjana Chokra, Sh. Narottam Naresh Walia, Yashee Jaspal and Sh. Shashi Prabhakar CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 12/18 (accused persons) are on record. These documents were executed by him after getting the exparte order dated 09.10.1987 related to bhoomidari rights in his favour and before the said order was set aside on 02.12.96. It is also noted that during the pendency of the instant case FIR no.358/96, accused no.1 Sudhan Singh died in the year 2003. The case as against him stood abated while it continued against the subsequent purchasers.
13. Now, I shall consider whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are fulfilled or not.
14. First, I shall consider the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
'Cheating' has been defined in section 415 IPC as follows:
'415. Cheating Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".' Section 420 IPC provides as follows:
'420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery or property 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 CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 13/18 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.'
15. In the instant case, the complainant who claims to be the owner of the land in dispute has not been cheated within the meaning of section 420 IPC. To constitute an offence u/s 420 IPC, there should not only be cheating but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the persons deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security. In the instant case, the complainant was not so induced in any manner. It has already been observed above that Sh. Sudhan Singh executed sale documents in respect of property in question in favour of certain purchasers after getting the exparte order dated 09.10.87 in his favour and before the said order was set aside on 02.12.96. In such circumstances, it is the purchasers who are the victims. The allegations u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 or 441 IPC cannot be imputed on them. There is also no element of conspiracy between Sudhan Singh and the subsequent purchasers.
16. So far as the allegation of making of false document is concerned, section 463 IPC and section 464 IPC must be read together. Section 463 IPC provides as follows:
"463. Forgery Whoever makes any false documents or CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 14/18 false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
Section 464 IPC provides as follows:
"464. Making a false documentA 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 part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity or the (electronic signature), with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or (electronic 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 (electronic signature) either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 15/18 time of such alteration; 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 (electronic 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.
17. To fall under the first category of 'false documents', it is not sufficient that the document was made or cancelled dishonestly or fraudulently. There is further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or cancelled by or by the authority of the person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.
18. In Mohd. Ibrahim's case it has been held :
'17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.'
19. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 16/18 complainant argued that the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Ibrahim's case were specific to that case and have no application in the instant case. The Court does not find any merit in this argument. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of the applicability of section 463 and 464 IPC are squarely applicable to the instant case.
20. As in Mohd. Ibrahim's case, in the instant case also, it is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making false or misleading representation or by any other act or omission. It has been further observed in Mohd. Ibrahim's Case:
'23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.'
21. The record makes it amply clear that dispute pertaining to the land in question is a long standing civil dispute. On one hand, the eviction proceedings in the property in question are pending, on the other hand the saledeeds in favour of Late Sh. Parmanand are also stated CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 17/18 to be under challenge.
22. In view of above discussion and in absence of sufficient material on record to frame charge against the accused persons, the Court does not find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 of the Ld. Trial Court. Revision petition is dismissed.
23. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28th DAY OF FEBURARY, 2017.
(Vrinda Kumari) ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI3), South, Saket Court New Delhi CR No.31/14 (8054/16) 28.02.2017 Page no. 18/18