Delhi District Court
Jatinder Kochar vs State on 30 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 133/2024
In the matter of :-
Jatinder Kochar
......... Revisionist
Versus
1. State
2. Geeta Katyal
3. Rajiv Katyal
.......... Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 399 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C.
Date of institution : 04.07.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 20.09.2024
Date of Judgment : 30.09.2024
JUDGMENT:-
1. This revision petition is filed against the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. ACMM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
2. Brief facts which led to filing of the revision petition may be noted. The revisionist has filed a complaint dated 23.02.2018 to the SHO PS Anand Vihar against the respondents no.2 and 3 Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 1 of 13 for committing the offenses of cheating, forgery, criminal intimidation and using the forged document as genuine. In the said complaint, it is averred that the complainant is one of the co- owner of property no.16, Manak Vihar, Delhi which was purchased vide registered sell deed dated 15.12.2017 from the previous owner Smt. Sudarshan Gaba. The complainant was made aware by the seller of the property that the above property was in illegal possession of respondent no.2 and 3 and they have also filed a civil suit against them on the basis of photocopy of an agreement to sell which is forged and fabricated. In the said civil suit, the said respondent no.2 and 3 were also made party. The complainant alongwith co-owner of the property visited the above property and met the respondent no.2 and 3 and asked them to show the original agreement to sell on the basis of which they have filed the suit for specific performance in the court. The respondent no.2 and 3 got furious and started threatening with dire consequences if they further made any enquiry regarding agreement to sell. The complainant obtained copy of agreement to sell allegedly entered into between Geeta Katyal and late Amar Singh Gaba and it was found to be a forged agreement created by respondent no.2 and 3. The complainant prayed the SHO PS Anand Vihar for registering the FIR u/s 406/415/420/468/471/120B/506/34 IPC.
3. On the basis of said complaint, the FIR in question i.e. FIR No.0152/2018 u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC came to be registered. The investigation was carried out. The police filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 2 and 3 for the offenses Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 2 of 13 for which the FIR was registered.
4. As per the charge-sheet, during course of the investigation Smt. Sudarshan Gaba was enquired and she informed that the above property was purchased by her late husband Amar Singh Gaba and he had executed a Will in her favour. The said Will was verified to be registered on 29.08.2016. It was also found that Smt. Sudarshan Gaba vide registered sale deed dated 16.12.2017 sold the above property to the revisionist and his other co-associates. Statements of Smt. Sudarshan Gaba and of her daughter Sangeeta were also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and they told that Amar Singh Gaba had never executed any agreement to sell with the respondent no.2 and 3. The respondent no.2 and 3 were asked to join the investigation and to produce the original agreement to sell and purchase dated 10.04.2009. They told the IO that the first page of the original agreement to sell was lost and remaining two pages are original and the agreement to sell was produced. Their specimen signatures and handwriting were taken. The witness to the said agreement to sell, namely, Rajinder Prasad Soni was examined and he told the IO that he does not know the respondent no.2 and 3 and he had not signed the said agreement. The details of the stamp paper on which the agreement to sell was made was taken from SDM office. The stamp paper was issued in the name of Santoshi Associates. Sh. R.R. Singh, the owner of Santoshi Associates was enquired and he told that he does not know the respondent no.2 and 3 and Amar Singh Gaba and he had not issued the said stamp paper on which the agreement to sell was made. Thus, the police Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 3 of 13 concluded that the offences u/s 420/467/468/471/120B IPC were made out against respondent no.2 and 3.
5. During course of the further proceedings, the police filed the supplementary charge-sheet along with FSL report before the Ld. Trial court and as per FSL report, the signatures of Sh. Amar Singh Gaba on the agreement to sell were found to be genuine.
6. The Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.04.2024 passed the order on charge and found that no offence u/s 420/468 IPC was made out against the respondent no.2 and 3 while it found a prima facie case for framing the charge for the offenses punishable u/s 467/471/120B IPC and accordingly framed the charge.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the revisionist who is claiming one of the co-owners of above property having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.2017 and the complainant filed the present revision petition on the following grounds : -
(a) That the trial court made a gross and fatal error by evaluating the material on record of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt at such an early stage of framing of charges where only a prima facie case against the accused ought to be seen.
(b) That the trial court has ignored the vital part of the charge-
sheet that the original first page of the agreement to sell having stamp paper was not produced by accused persons in order to cause injury to the complainant with a pre-planned and Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 4 of 13 dishonest intention and to cheat the complainant by hiding the forged document and, therefore, the accused committed the offences u/s 420/468/204/474 IPC and the Ld. Trial court ought to have framed the charges for the said offenses against the respondent no.2 and 3.
(c) That the trial court erred in not framing the charge for the offence u/s 423 IPC as the alleged agreement to sell was executed by respondent no.2 and 3 with a false statement of transfer of subject property in their favour by late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba.
8. Thus, the revisionist prayed for framing the charges for the offences punishable u/s 420/468/423/474/204 IPC against the respondent no.2 and 3.
9. The respondents have not filed any formal reply to the revision petition and argued straightaway.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
11. The Ld. Counsel for revisionist has argued that the Ld. Trial Court has found that the respondent no.2 and 3 have committed forgery of the documents and directed to frame charge u/s 467 IPC. However, the Ld. Trial court failed to frame the charge of the offenses punishable u/s 420/468 IPC as it failed to appreciate that the respondent no.2 and 3 had created the forged agreement to sell to cheat the complainant and to cause wrongful loss to the revisionist. He submitted that the respondent no.2 and 3 not only forged the agreement to sell but also concealed the Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 5 of 13 original first page of the said agreement to sell and the provisions of Dection 204 IPC are attracted. He further submitted that since the agreement to sell was forged for the purpose of cheating, therefore the charge u/s 468 IPC ought to have been framed. He further submitted that the respondent no.2 and 3 have executed and became party to a forged agreement to sell to set up the case of transfer of interest in the subject property by late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba in their favour and, therefore, the charge u/s 423 IPC was also made out. He further submitted that the accused persons in the investigation report have claimed to have paid Rs.15 lacs to Amar Singh Gaba but there is no evidence to prove the same. He further submitted that the respondent no.2 and 3 did not produce the original first page of agreement to sell and took a false plea of having lost the same and lodged NCR in the year 2018 which is an after thought. He further submitted that the Ld. Trial court has only considered the averments made in the complaint while passing the order on charge but if the entire charge-sheet is gone through then the charge for committing the offenses u/s 420/468/474/423/204 IPC are also made out. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to direct the Ld. Trial court to frame the charges against respondent no.2 and 3 for the above offenses as well.
12. The Ld. Addl PP for the State submitted that the revisionist has taken the fresh grounds in the present revision petition. He submitted that the revisionist had not pressed for framing the charge for the offenses which are pleaded in the present revision before the Ld. Trial court nor made any Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 6 of 13 allegations in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. He further submitted that there are no ingredients of cheating with the revisionist and Section 420 IPC is not made out and when there is no cheating, the charge for the offence u/s 468 IPC cannot be made out. He further submitted that the Ld. Trial court has framed the charge u/s 467 and 471 IPC and the punishment for the such offences if proved are upto life imprisonment, therefore the charge for the offences u/s 204/423/474 IPC were not required to be framed separately as the said offences are minor as compared to section 467/471 IPC and already covered in the offences under Section 467 and 471 IPC and for each minor offence, separate charge is not required to be framed. He further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity and infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. The Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 and 3 has vehemently argued that the revisionist has purchased the disputed property in the year 2017 as it was well within his knowledge that the property was in possession of respondent no.2 and 3 pursuant to agreement to sell executed between the respondent no.2 and 3 and late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba and the litigation was also going on in respect of the said property between them as the respondent no.2 and 3 has filed a suit for specific performance of contract. He further submitted that the revisionist has filed the complaint and got registered FIR to arm twist and pressurize the respondent no.2 and 3. He further submitted that the agreement to sell was executed on 10.04.2009 between the respondent no.2 Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 7 of 13 and Amar Singh Gaba and revisionist intentionally entered into the dispute vide allegedly executing sale deed dt 15.12.2017 to grab the property in question which is occupied by respondent no.2 and 3. He further submitted that late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba never raised any objection in respect to agreement to sell and the consideration amount paid by respondent no.2 and 3 to him qua the property in question. He further submitted that necessary ingredients of the offenses for which the revisionist is seeking to frame the charge are not fulfilled and, therefore, the Ld. Trial court has rightly not framed the charges for the said offences. He has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
14. From the aforesaid pleadings, arguments and material available on record, it is revealed that subject property was owned by Late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba. It is not in dispute that the subject property is in possession of the respondent no.2 and 3 and respondent no.2 Geeta Katyal is the daughter of late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba. The revisionist has claimed that he alongwith other persons got purchased the above property vide a registered sale deed dated 15.12.2017 from previous owner i.e Smt. Sudarshan Gaba who is the wife of late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba and it is claimed that late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba had bequeathed the above property in favour of his wife Smt. Sudarshan Gaba vide registered Will dated 29.08.2016. Sh. Amar Singh Gaba has expired on 12.03.2017 and as such by virtue of the said registered Will, Smt. Sudarshan Gaba sold the said property to the revisionist and others vide registered sale deed dated 15.12.2017. It is also not in dispute that the revisionist was well aware that Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 8 of 13 the said property is in dispute and also in possession of respondent no.2 and 3 because a litigation is already going on between the respondent no.2 and 3 and Smt. Sudarshan Gaba. It is also not in dispute that the revisionist was aware that the respondent no.2 and 3 were staking claim on the subject property by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 10.04.2009 which is alleged to have been entered into between respondent no.2 Mrs. Geeta Katyal and late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba.
15. The case of the revisionist is that the said agreement to sell dated 10.04.2009 is forged and fabricated for the various reasons for which the FIR in question was also registered and same culminated into filing of charge-sheet for the offenses punishable u/s 420/467/468/471/120 B IPC.
16. However, the grievance of the revisionist is that the Ld. Trial court has framed the charges only for the offenses punishable u/s 467/471/120 B IPC and did not frame the charges for the offenses punishable u/s 420/468/474/423/204 IPC.
17. Now it has to be seen as to whether the necessary ingredients for the aforesaid offenses were fulfilled to frame the charges against respondent no.2 and 3 as claimed by the revisionist in the light of charge-sheet and material available on record.
18. For attracting the provisions of Section 420 IPC, necessary ingredients are that the person whoever cheats must have dishonestly induced the victim to deliver the property. There must be dishonest intention at the time of making the Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 9 of 13 inducement. The person who is deceived must have delivered the property to the accused and there should be wrongful gain to the person who is deceiving and corresponding wrongful loss to the person who is being deceived.
19. In the present case, the alleged agreement to sell was executed on 10.04.2009 between late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba and the respondent no.2 Smt. Geeta Katyal. It is also admitted fact that respondent no.2 and 3 are in the possession of property since 2009. It is also an admitted fact that Arjun Kochhar Buildwell Pvt Ltd. through its Director i.e. revisionist has purchased 23% of share from Smt. Sudarshan Gaba vide sale deed dated 15.12.2017. There is nothing on record to show that there is any agreement or communication between the revisionist and respondent no.2 and 3 or that at any stage, the respondent no.2 and 3 have induced the revisionist to enter into sale transaction with Smt. Sudarshan Gaba. There is no inducement at all on the part of respondent no. 2 and 3 to the revisionist nor consequently any delivery of the property by the revisionist to the respondent no. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not fulfilled.
20. Section 468 IPC talks about forgery for the purpose of cheating. Once the essential ingredients of cheating are not fulfilled, the offense under Section 468 IPC is not made out.
21. As regards Section 204 IPC is concerned, it provides the punishment for secreting or destroying any document which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 10 of 13 Justice, or obliterates or renders illegal the whole or any part of such document or electronic record with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court.
22. The revisionist is invoking this Section 204 IPC on the ground that the respondent no.2 and 3 have not produced original first page of agreement to sell and the plea that same has been lost is an after thought. However, at this stage, no definite finding can be given as to whether the respondent no.2 and 3 have secreted or destroyed the first original page of said agreement to sell in order to prevent the same from being produced or used for evidence before the Court. The said provision will come into play when it is proved that the accused has indulged in secreting or destroying any document which he maybe lawfully produced as evidence. It appears that the said contention of the revisionist is pre-mature.
23. So far as invoking of charge for the offence under Sections 423/474 IPC are concerned, Section 423 IPC provides for dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration. First of all, no such deed of transfer has been executed by the respondent no.2 and 3 by which the property has been transferred. The respondent no.2 and 3 are only claiming to have entered into agreement to sell with late Sh. Amar Singh Gaba. Similarly, the contention of the appellant regarding false statement of consideration allegedly made in agreement to sell is yet the subject matter of judicial scrutiny and there is no finding of the Court so far as to whether Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 11 of 13 the consideration was exchanged in terms of the agreement to sell or not.
24. Section 474 IPC talks about having possession of document described in Section 466 or 467 knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine. The Ld. Trial Court has already framed the charge u/s 467 IPC against respondent no. 2 & 3 and, if proved, it may entail the punishment upto life imprisonment. Section 474 IPC also provides punishment upto life imprisonment if the document is one of the description mentioned in Section 467 IPC. Therefore, no separate charge for the offence u/s 474 IPC was required to be framed as per provisions of section 221 & 222 Cr.P.C.
25. It has been held in K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No.2029/2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :-
10. Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that sub-section 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-
section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. The Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge."
Criminal Revision No. 133/2024 Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 12 of 13
26. In view of aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Court. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
27. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court along with copy of this judgment.
28. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by BALWANT BALWANT RAI BANSAL RAI Date:
BANSAL 2024.09.30
13:31:18
Announced in the open Court +0530
on 30th September, 2024 (Balwant Rai Bansal)
Special Judge (NDPS Act), Shahdara
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No. 133/2024
Jatinder Kochar vs. The State & Ors. Page 13 of 13