Delhi District Court
Raminder Kaur vs Pushpender Singh on 13 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC)(RC),
DWARKA COURTS, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of:
CNR No. DLSW01-008678-2023
Criminal Revision No. 547/2023
Raminder Kaur
Wife of Sh. Jaspal Singh Anand,
Resident of C-1/111, Ist Floor,
Janak Puri, New Delhi- 110058
... Revisionist
versus
Pushpender Singh
Son of Sh. Hardev Singh,
Resident of BF-34,
Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110058.
...Respondent
Date of Institution of Revision : 02.09.2023
Date on which Order reserved : 22.04.2024
Date of Order : 13.05.2024
ORDER
1. The present revision petition under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 02.06.2023, passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-West, Dwarka in Complaint Case no. 8083/2019, in case titled as 'Pushpinder Singh v. Raminder Kaur', whereby the application under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, filed by the accused for referring the promissory note to FSL for determination of the age of ink on the document, was dismissed.
2. Respondent was noticed, who entered appearance and filed a reply to the present revision petition. Trial Court Record was also summoned.
3. Arguments on behalf of the revisionist and respondent were heard at length.
4. The learned Counsel for the revisionist/accused has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds--
i. That the impugned order is based on assumptions and presumptions and no sound and cogent reason has been assigned while passing the said order and that it is against the law and facts of the case;
ii. That the learned trial Court did not apply reason and ignored recent innovative technology in the field of forensic examination;
iii. That the respondent/complainant furnished a false and forged document, i.e. Pronote dated 22.07.2017, Ex. CW1/1. It is the submission of the appellant that the pronote was blank at the time of when the signatures and thumb impression of the revisionist/accused were obtained on it 01.09.2017, when the respondent transferred Rs. 20 lakhs to the appellant through bank transfer. Later, respondent filed the pronote with dishonest intention and in connivance with his friend Taranjit Singh, and Taranjit Singh also put his Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh Page 2 of 6 CR No. 547/2023, Police Station Janakpuri signatures as a witness on the said pronote;
iv. That the respondent/complainant and his witness Taranjit Singh, both deposed that a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- in cash was advanced on 22.07.2017 and revisionist/accused executed the alleged pronote of Rs.4,50,000/- on 22.07.2017 however, the respondent/complainant during his cross-examination deposed that he paid only Rs.20,000/- on 22.07.2017. It is further argued that Taranjit also categorically deposed that amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in cash was not paid by respondent/complainant to the revisionist/accused in his presence;
v. That it is the defence of the revisionist that the pronote in question was filed on a later date. It is the revisionist's submission that this can be proved through forensic examination of the said documents. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the revisionist/ accused for sending the said pronote to FSL by observing that this cannot be done due to non-availability of the technology in this field. It is further argued that the technology is now so advanced that it can be accurately ascertained through forensic examination as to whether the document was filled up on later stage or at the same time when the admitted signatures were made.
5. On the contrary, reply was filed by the respondent wherein the respondent has stated that the order passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned and present revision petition is nothing but an utter abuse of process of Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh Page 3 of 6 CR No. 547/2023, Police Station Janakpuri law. It is further submitted by the respondent that appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed various material facts and circumstances from this Court. The respondent denied the grounds raised by the appellant.
6. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note that the revisional power of this Court has been invoked. It would be relevant to understand the scope of this power before proceeding further.
7. The objective behind the enactment of the provisions dealing with revisional jurisdiction is to correct a patent defect or error of jurisdiction or law. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 held that a revision court has a limited mandate of only evaluating the prima facie legality, correctness, or the propriety of the orders, findings and/or sentences of a lower court in accordance with the established rules of criminal jurisprudence. The relevant paragraph is quoted as under--
"...The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits."
8. The Court in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 431 disapproved exercise of original powers of trial court by a revision court by way of re-appreciation of evidence. The revision court ought not Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh Page 4 of 6 CR No. 547/2023, Police Station Janakpuri interfere by entering into merits and forming opinion by re-appreciating evidence as it would not be proper.
9. In the instant matter, the order of the learned trial court as well as the trial Court record has been perused. The argument raised by the revisionist appears to be far-fetched. It is uncertain as to how a determination of the nature sought by the revisionist would aid it. The revisionist has not denied her signatures but states that the remaining pronote was filled in later. Assuming for a minute that the pronote was blank when the revisionist signed it, and was filled later, what prompts the revisionist to say it was filled in 2019. Why could it not have been filled the very next minute or the next hour or the next day and so on and so forth. That being the case, what then would an examination of the ink prove. Further examination of ink, will not be able to determine difference between the ink which would be hours or days apart. Reliance was rightly placed by the learned Trial Court on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, (1971) 1 SCC 396.
10. Further a person can also use old ink to fill in a document. As rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court in Yashpal v. Kartar Singh, 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 701, wherein the Court held that expert opinion to check the age of the ink cannot help to determine the date of writing of the document as the ink used in the writing of the document may have been manufactured years earlier.
11. Allowing the determination sought by the revisionist is akin to looking for a needle in a haystack, without even being sure as to the existence of the needle in the first place. The contentions argued have been discussed in ample detail by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order. This Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh Page 5 of 6 CR No. 547/2023, Police Station Janakpuri Court is unable to find any illegality or infirmity with the impugned order so passed. The order is well reasoned, balanced and has considered all the contentions so raised. Accordingly, present revision petition is found to lack of merit and is hereby dismissed.
12.Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. Trial Court record be sent back immediately.
13. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in Open Court on this 13th day of May, 2024.
(SADHIKA JALAN) Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC) (RC) South West District, Dwarka Court New Delhi, 13.05.2024 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh Page 6 of 6 CR No. 547/2023, Police Station Janakpuri