Delhi District Court
Arvind Kumar vs . on 6 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE03 : (SOUTH EAST) DELHI
CC no. 172/1/12
Unique ID no. 02403R0581992008
Arvind Kumar
s/o Sh. Sita Ram,
R/o M157, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur,
Badarpur, New Delhi .....Complainant
Vs.
1.Man Singh s/o Saudagar Singh R/o 143, Jaitpur Village Badarpur, New Delhi
2. Shankar Kashyap s/o Shri Tulsi Ram R/o A2, Saurabh Vihar Jaitpur Extension, New Delhi .....Accused Date of Institution of complaint : 19.05.2008 Date of Reserving the Judgment : 28.09.2015 Date of Decision : 06.10.2015 CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 1 of 12
ORDER ON CHARGE The allegations of complainant in brief is that complainant approached to accused no. 2 namely Shankar Kashyap for purchase of some agricultural land and he introduced the accused no. 1 namely Man Singh to complainant that accused no. 1 is owner and in possession of agricultural land measuring 30000 sp. Yards situated at HBlock, Jaitpur Extension II, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi in khasra no. 880, 882 and 889. The accused no. 1 had shown the agricultural land and photocopy of its title documents were handed over to the complainant. Relying upon the version of the accused persons, the complainant agreed to purchase the said agriculture land at a total consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/.
2. It is further submitted that on 11.02.2005, the complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/ to accused no. 1 in the presence of accused no. 2 as bayana of the said agricultural land and the accused no. 1 executed receipt dated 11.02.2005 in favour of the complainant. It was agreed between the complainant and accused that Rs. 5,00,000/ would be payable by the complainant to the accused no. 1 at the time of taking possession of the land and remaining amount would be payable after four months.
CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 2 of 12
3. It is alleged that after paying bayana of Rs. 2,00,000/ to the accused persons, the complainant so many times approached to the accused persons for the possession of the said agricultural land as the complainant was ready to pay the balance consideration. But the accused persons kept the matter lingering on one pretext or other. In the month of April 2008, the complainant came to know that the accused no. 1 is not the actual owner of the said agricultural land and he has sold the same to one Mr. Zaidi, prior to 11.02.2005.
4. It is further stated in the complaint that on 30.04.2008, the complainant went to the accused persons and asked them to return the bayana amount of Rs. 2,00,000/, on which accused no. 1 threatened him of dire consequences and accused no. 2 threatened him to implicate in false criminal case stating that he is working in Home Ministry. The complainant lodged a complaint dated 30.04.2008 against both the accused persons in P. P. Madanpur Khadar, SHO P. S. Sarita Vihar, ACP, Sarita Vihar, DCP, (South) and C. P. Delhi but till date, no action has taken by the concerned police officials. Hence, complaint has been filed before this court.
5. During pre summoning evidence, complainant examined himself as CW1, Sh. Anil Mishra as CW2 and Sh. Ram Shankar Singh as CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 3 of 12 CW3. Pre summoning evidence was closed vide order dated 29.10.2009.
6. Vide order dated 21.01.2012, accused Man Singh and Shankar Kashyap were summoned for offences alleged in the complaint.
7. During pre charge evidence, complainant has examined himself as CW1 and has briefly reiterated allegations in the complaint. The complainant has also examined Sh. Ram Shankar Singh as CW2 and Sh. Anil Mishra as CW3 during pre charge evidence. Pre charge evidence was closed vide order dt. 10.04.2015. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for arguments on charge.
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant was working with Shankar Kashyap, and due to some dispute with Shankar Kashyap, he had lodged false complaint against Shankar Kashyap and Man Singh as few property documents of Man Singh were in the possession of complainant during his service with accused Shankar Kashyap. It is also argued that the complainant has not placed on record any documents to show his source of income that he had Rs. 2 lacs cash with him during relevant time nor he has examined the remaining witnesses of the receipt Ex.CW1/A. It is also submitted that the alleged CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 4 of 12 receipt is of the year 2005, however, no complaint has been lodged with the police till the year 2008 and the complainant has failed to disclose any reason for not lodging complaint with the police or before the Court during the year 20052008. It is submitted that the complainant has filed false complaint to extort money from the accused persons. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
9. Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant has examined two witnesses to the receipt who have proved that accused Man Singh had received payment of Rs. 2 lacs from the complainant towards sale of the plot. It is submitted that the complainant has been able to prove its case against both accused.
10. I have gone through the material on record and considered the submissions.
11. The complainant has alleged offence u/s 420/468/506 IPC. Section 420 IPC provides punishment for offence of cheating. Section 468 IPC provides punishment for offence of forgery of a Will or valuable security etc. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for offence of criminal intimidation.
12. Now, I will examine whether prima facie offence of cheating is CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 5 of 12 made out against the accused persons so as to frame charge against them and proceed with trial.
13. During pre charge evidence, the complainant has examined himself as CW1 and has reiterated the allegations in the complaint.
14. CW2 Shri Ram Shankar Singh, who is a witness to the receipt Ex.CW1/A, has stated that he is a witness to the document that complainant Arvind Kumar had made payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to Man Singh on 11.02.2005. He has also stated that the document was firstly signed by Man Singh and thereafter they signed as witnesses.
15. Similarly, CW3 Shri Anil Mishra has stated that Arvind Kumar made a payment of Rs. 2 lacs to Man Singh and Man Singh executed a receipt of the same. During cross examination, CW3 Shri Anil Mishra has also stated that he knows Arvind Kumar as Arvind is his neighbour for last 15 years. He did not know Man Singh and Shankar and met them only on that day when the payment was made. The witness has also stated that Man Singh and Arvind Kumar had signed the receipt in his presence and thereafter, he signed as a witness. He has also stated that the payment was in respect of a plot at PartII, Jaitpur.
16. The complainant, during pre charge evidence, has stated that he CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 6 of 12 had approached accused Shankar for purchase of agricultural land and Shankar introduced Man Singh as the owner of agricultural land. Believing them, complainant made payment of Rs. 2 lacs to Man Singh in the presence of Shankar Kashyap and receipt was executed by Man Singh in this regard which is Ex.CW1/A and photocopy of ownership documents of the property were handed over to the complainant.
17. Complainant has further deposed that after execution of receipt, he approached accused Man Singh and Shankar time and again to take the balance consideration and transfer the property. But in April, 2008, he came to know that Man Singh is not the owner of the land and he has already sold the same to Mr. Jaidi prior to 11.02.2005.
18. The complainant has been cross examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsel. During cross examination, the complainant has stated that he knew Shankar Kashyap as he is property dealer and he knew Man Singh through Shankar Kashyap. He has also stated during cross examination that payment of Rs. 2 lacs was made in cash which was kept in his house and Rs. 2 lacs was accumulated by him after 57 years of work of building material shop.
19. The complainant had relied upon the receipt dated 11.02.2005 CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 7 of 12 which is allegedly executed by accused Man Singh in respect of sale of agricultural land at khasra no. 880, 882 and 889. Perusal of the receipt Ex.CW1/A would show that witnesses Ram Shankar and Anil Mishra have identified their signatures on the said receipt. It is not necessary that in all cases, the complainant shall examine all attesting witnesses to the document.
20. During cross examination of complainant Arvind Kumar, suggestion has been given that the complainant has forged the signature of Man Singh on the receipt. Mere allegation of accused that signature has been forged on the receipt Ex.CW1/A is not sufficient to prove at this stage that the receipt does not bearing signature of accused Man Singh.
21. At the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of framing of charge, the enquiry must necessarily be limited to decide if the facts emerging from the materials on record constitute the offence with which the accused could be charged. The Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 8 of 12 alleged offence. Before framing the charge, the Court must apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible.
22. Perusal of the receipt Ex.CW1/A prima facie show that accused Man Singh had received a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from the complainant towards sale of land. Complainant has specifically stated that Man Singh was introduced as owner of the agricultural land by Shankar Kashyap. He has also stated that he came to know later on that Man Singh had already sold the land to someone prior to execution of receipt. The material on record is prima facie sufficient to frame charge u/s 420 IPC against both accused as the accused had allegedly induced the complainant to hand over a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on the promise that the land would be sold to him, though the land was already transferred to some third party. In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that prima facie offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against both accused.
23. Now, coming to offence under section 506 IPC. Ingredients of offence of ''criminal intimidation'' as defined in Section 503 IPC and punishable under Section 506 IPC are as under: (1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 9 of 12
(ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
(2) Threatening a person with injury.
(a) to cause alarm to that person, or
(b) to cause the person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, or
(c) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do so as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
24. Complainant has deposed that on 30.04.2008 he went to the accused persons and asked them to return the bayana amount of Rs. 2 lacs, then accused Man Singh threatened him of dire consequences and accused Shankar Kashyap threatened him to implicate in false criminal case.
25. In the complaint u/s 200 CrPC, the complainant has stated that accused Man Singh threatened him of dire consequences and accused Shankar Kashyap threatened him to implicate in false criminal case stating that he is working in Home Ministry.
26. It is settled position of law that the gist of the offence under Section 506 IPC is that the threat is intended to have upon the mind of CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 10 of 12 the person threatened. Mere vague allegation will not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC. The averments made in the complaint and statement of the complainant before this Court also do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 506 IPC.
27. The law is settled that mere empty threats do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 506. The allegations of the complainant are only that the accused gave threats. There is no mention that the said threats caused alarm to the complainant. Hence, offence punishable u/s 506 IPC is not made out against any of the accused. The witnesses examined by the complainant have also not deposed that any such threats caused alarm to the complainant.
28. In the absence of any evidence or deposition with regard to the alarm to the complainant in consequent to the alleged threats, the offence under Section 506 IPC is not constituted. Therefore, this Court holds that the complainant has failed to prove prima facie case for offence under section 506 of IPC against the accused persons.
29. Lastly coming to offence u/s 468 IPC, section 468 IPC provides punishment for forgery done with an intention to commit cheating. The CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr. PS Jaitpur Page 11 of 12 form of forgery has to involve the intention of committing cheating. What is essential is committing forgery with the intent to use the forged document for the purpose of cheating.
30. Section 468 IPC specifically provides that the forged documents must be a valuable security or a Will or an authority to adopt a person or gives authority to any person to transfer any valuable security. In the present case, the receipt is neither a valuable security nor a Will nor an authority to adopt a person.
31. In the present case, the complainant has not stated as to what document has been forged by the accused persons and in what manner the forgery has been committed. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that offence u/s 468 IPC is also not made out against the accused persons.
32. In view of the discussion hereinabove, this Court holds that prima facie offence u/s 420/34 IPC is made out against both accused Man Singh and Shankar Kashyap.
Pronounced in the open Court (Neha)
today on 06th October, 2015 MM03 (South East)
Saket, New Delhi
CC No. 172/1/12 Arbind Kumar Vs. Man Singh & Anr.
PS Jaitpur Page 12 of 12