Delhi District Court
State vs Mohan Kukreja on 7 August, 2025
23
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL JAIN, JMFC-01, SOUTH-EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
CR. CASE No. 428/2/2014 & 88172/2016 STATE vs. MOHAN KUKREJA & MADAN KUKREJA U/s: 420/468/471/120-B IPC FIR No. 428/1993 PS: Lajpat Nagar a. Cr. Case No. : 428/2/2014 & 88172/2016 b. Date of institution : 06.10.2004 c. Date of commission of offence : 23.11.1993 d. Name of the complainant : SI Yogesh Tanwar e. Name of the accused : Mohan Kukreja S/o Sh. D.R.Kukreja and Madan Kukreja S/o Sh. D.R.Kukreja.
f. Nature of offence complained of : 420/468/471/120-B IPC g. Plea of the accused person : Accused persons pleaded not guilty.
h. Date of order : 07.08.2025 i. Final Order : Acquitted BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :- 1. This case arises from a complaint filed by Sunder Kukreja on
23.11.1993 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, alleging that his brothers, Mohan Kukreja (Accused No. 1 and Madan Kukreja (Accused No. 2), committed forgery and cheating by fabricating a retirement deed dated 18.08.1990 receipts worth Rs. 50,000/- dated 15.08.90 of firm M/s D.R. Kukreja & Company and converted the partnership into FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19 11:13:33 +0530 23 proprietorship to deprive him and his brothers, Ram Chand Kukreja and Raj Kumar Kukreja, of the benefits in the partnership firm M/s D.R. Kukreja & Co., which operates Sapna Cinema. Further, both accused, being parties to a criminal conspiracy to commit cheating, dishonestly deceived the complainant, Sunder Lal Kukreja, and Raj Kumar, Ram Chander, by altering or destroying the whole or any part of the deed of retirement dated 18.08.1990 and receipts of Rs. 50,000/-, which were capable of being converted into valuable security, by forging the signatures of the complainants on the said deed of retirement and receipts. In doing so, they committed an offence punishable under Section 420/120-B IPC, within the cognizance of this court. Secondly, on the said date, time, and place, both accused, being parties to a criminal conspiracy to commit forgery with intent, forged the deed of retirement dated 18.08.1990 and receipts dated 15.08.1990. These were to be used for the purpose of depriving the complainant and his brother, by forging the signatures of complainants Sunder Lal Kukreja, Raj Kumar, and Ram Chander, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 468/120-B IPC, within the cognizance of this court. Thirdly, on the said date, time, and place, both accused, being parties to a criminal conspiracy, fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the said forged deed of retirement dated 18.08.1990 and receipts of Rs. 50,000/- dated 15.08.1990, which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents. By doing so, they committed an offence punishable under Section 471/120-B IPC, within the cognizance of this court. The complaint alleges that on 03.06.1992, the complainant and others discovered broken cupboards and missing documents at the Sapna Cinema office, and upon inquiry, the accused claimed the complainants had retired from the FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19 11:13:37 +0530 23 partnership, presenting the alleged forged deed. An FIR (Ex. PW-1/B) was registered on 23.11.1993 under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited several documents, including a CFSL report (Ex. PW-9/A), to support its case.
- Prosecution Witnesses :-
- PW-1 (Inspector Balwant Singh): Registered the FIR on 23.11.1993 based on the complainant's complaint (Ex. PW-1/B).
- PW-2 (SI Sunil Kumar): Conducted investigation in 1996, recorded a supplementary statement of Sunder Kukreja.
- PW-3 (Raj Kumar Kukreja): Stated he visited Sapna Cinema in 1992 with his brothers and learned of the retirement deed but could not recall lodging any complaint or police inquiries (cross-examination, 17.10.2017, 15.12.2017). Admitted a family settlement occurred between 1989-1991 (cross-examination, 15.12.2017).
- PW-4 (Sunder Kukreja): Alleged the accused forged the retirement deed and vouchers to oust him and his brothers. Claimed prior complaints were made but provided no evidence. Denied signing the retirement deed (statement, 10.10.2008; cross-examination, 20.01.2018, 24.04.2019).
- PW-5 (Ram Chand Kukreja): Testimony incomplete due to his demise before cross-examination (Page 9).
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL RAHUL
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:13:40
+0530
23
- PW-6 (Rakesh Sharma): Claimed he visited Sapna Cinema with the complainants on 03.06.1992 and observed the ransacked office. Contradicted himself by stating he did not enter the premises and was there to collect a cheque (cross-examination, 28.01.2023, 07.03.2023).
- PW-7 (Retd. SI Pargat Singh): Recorded witness statements in 1993 and retired soon after (cross-examination, 01.03.2024).
- PW-8 (Retd. Inspector Sunil Gupta): Conducted formal arrests in 1998 and noted documents were filed in the Delhi High Court (cross-examination, 01.03.2024, 11.07.2024).
- PW-9 (Alka Gupta, CFSL): Identified the signatures of S.L. Mukhi on the CFSL report but was not involved in its preparation and unaware of its facts (statement, 11.09.2024; cross-examination, 19.10.2024).
- Key Documents :-
- Ex. PW-4/A: Complaint dated 23.11.1993, signed only by Sunder Kukreja.
- Ex. PW-1/B: FIR dated 23.11.1993.
- Ex. PW-3/B: Retirement deed dated 16.08.1990.
- Ex. PW-9/A: CFSL report dated 21.11.1996, stating signatures of Sunder Kukreja and Ram Chand Kukreja show signs of imitation, while no opinion was formed on Raj Kumar Kukreja's signatures.
3. Main Issues for Determination a. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the retirement deed and vouchers dated 16.08.1990 were forged, as alleged?
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:13:43
+0530
23
b. Whether the prosecution has established that the accused, Mohan Kukreja
and Madan Kukreja, committed the forgery or used the forged documents with dishonest intent to cheat the complainants?
c. Whether the prosecution has proved a criminal conspiracy between the accused under Section 120-B IPC?
4. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED MADAN KUKREJA The prosecution fails to prove charges under IPC Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120-B against Madan Kukreja beyond reasonable doubt due to a 1.5-year delay in filing the FIR on 23.11.1993 for an alleged incident on 03.06.1992, with no substantiated prior complaints, casting doubt on credibility (PW-4 cross, 29.04.2019); an inconclusive CFSL report (Ex. PW-9/A, 21.11.1996) that does not link Madan Kukreja to forgery, undermined by the non-examination of its author and PW-9's lack of case knowledge (PW-9 cross, 19.10.2024); no evidence tying Madan Kukreja, who retired under the same deed without benefit, to forging the document, as his signatures were not forensically examined (Ex. PW-3/B); contradictory testimonies from PW-3, PW-4, and PW- 6, with PW-6, an interested witness, admitting limited knowledge (cross, 07.03.2023); absence of motive or evidence of a conspiracy agreement under Section 120-B; and legal precedents like Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) and Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009), which require proof of the accused making a false document, absent here, as suspicion cannot substitute legal proof (Latesh v. State of Maharashtra, 2018). Accordingly, Madan Kukreja should be acquitted of all charges.
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL JAIN
RAHUL Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:13:46
+0530
23
5. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED MOHAN KUKREJA (DECEASED) FIR and Investigation: An FIR (Ex. PW-1/B) was registered on 23.11.1993 at Lajpat Nagar Police Station, 1.5 years after the alleged incident, with no explanation for the delay. A prior civil suit (No. 2190/1992, filed 11.06.1992) was filed by the complainant in the Delhi High Court, where original documents were submitted. The High Court ordered specimen signatures of the complainant and his brothers on 20.05.1996, sent to CFSL for examination. Notably, the accused's signatures were not taken for forensic analysis, a critical omission given Madan Kukreja's signatory status on the deed.
CFSL Report: The CFSL report (Ex. PW-9/A, 21.11.1996) did not conclusively establish forgery or attribute it to the accused. A chargesheet was filed on 28.04.1998, and charges were framed under IPC Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120-B on 28.05.2007. The accused pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution Witnesses: Nine witnesses were examined: PW-1 (Inspector Balwant Singh), PW-2 (SI Sunil Kumar), PW-3 (Raj Kumar Kukreja), PW- 4 (Sunder Kukreja), PW-5 (Ram Chand Kukreja, deceased, incomplete testimony), PW-6 (Rakesh Sharma), PW-7 (Retired SI Pargat Singh), PW-8 (Retired Inspector Sunil Gupta), PW-9 (Ankita Gupta, CFSL). Key exhibits included the complaint, FIR, partnership/retirement deeds, vouchers, and CFSL report.
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:13:49 +0530
23
5.1. STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES
PW-1 (Balwant Singh): Registered the FIR on 23.11.1993 based on the complaint, with no preliminary inquiry or further investigation beyond recording the complainant's statement (cross, 24.09.2016, 22.10.2016).
PW-2 (Sunil Kumar): Took over in 1996, recorded Sunder Kukreja's statement, but conducted no further investigation (cross, 24.09.2016, 09.12.2016).
PW-3 (Raj Kumar Kukreja): Alleged manipulation by Mohan Kukreja in 1992 but could not recall lodging any complaint or police inquiry. Admitted the partnership was dissolved in 1990 and a family settlement occurred during 1989-1991 (cross, 17.10.2017, 15.12.2017).
PW-4 (Sunder Kukreja): Claimed equal partnership shares and denial of entry to Sapna Cinema in June 1992. Alleged forgery by Mohan Kukreja but admitted no police call was made, and prior complaints were unsubstantiated. Contradicted PW-3 on family settlement and omitted the 03.06.1992 incident in the civil suit (cross, 20.01.2018, 24.04.2019, 07.02.2020). Admitted to changing his signature post-1990 due to prior forgery (cross, 21.12.2018).
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL RAHUL
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:13:52
+0530
23
PW-5 (Ram Chand Kukreja): Testimony incomplete due to demise; cannot be relied upon (Evidence Act).
PW-6 (Rakesh Sharma): Claimed to have witnessed the 03.06.1992 incident but admitted limited interaction with Ram Chand and Raj Kumar Kukreja, raising bias concerns. Contradicted his presence inside the ransacked office and purpose of visit (cross, 28.01.2023, 07.03.2023).
PW-7 (Pargat Singh): Recorded witness statements in 1993 and retired soon after (cross, 01.03.2024).
PW-8 (Sunil Gupta): Conducted formal arrests in 1998, noting documents were filed in the High Court (cross, 11.07.2024, 08.08.2024).
PW-9 (Alka Gupta): Identified S.L. Mukhi's signature on the CFSL report but was not conversant with case facts (cross, 19.10.2024).
5.2. SUBMISSIONS A. Unexplained Delay in Filing Complaint The incident occurred on 03.06.1992, but the FIR was filed on 23.11.1993, a 1.5-year delay with no credible explanation. PW-3 and PW-4 admitted no immediate police contact (cross, 17.10.2017, 20.01.2018). PW-4's claim of prior complaints lacks evidence (cross, 24.04.2019). This delay, FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:13:55
+0530
23
per Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013) and Shanmugam v. State (2013), undermines prosecution credibility.
B. False and Fabricated Complaint The 03.06.1992 incident is absent from the civil suit (No. 2190/1992, filed 11.06.1992), casting doubt on its authenticity. PW-4's claim of joint complaint filing is contradicted by the complaint bearing only his signature (cross, 20.01.2018). PW-3's uncertainty about filing any complaint further weakens the case (cross, 26.05.2018). Inconsistencies among PW-3, PW-4, and PW-6 suggest fabrication to usurp Mohan Kukreja's business.
C. No Forgery Proven No investigation into forgery was conducted, as admitted by PWs 1, 2, 7, and 8. The CFSL report (Ex. PW-9/A) does not conclusively establish forgery or link it to the accused, as their signatures were not examined. PW- 4 admitted to changing his signature post-1990, affecting forensic comparison (cross, 21.12.2018). The report found Raj Kumar Kukreja's signatures similar, undermining forgery claims. Per Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018), forgery requires proof of a false document, which is absent here.
D. Discrepancies in CFSL Report The CFSL report lacks clarity on methodology and authorship, failing to address time-related handwriting changes or margin of error. It suggests FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19 11:13:58 +0530 23 imitation for Ram Chand and Sunder Kukreja's signatures but is inconclusive for Raj Kumar Kukreja, weakening the prosecution's case. A 19.09.2024 CFSL letter highlights the absence of an expert familiar with the case, questioning the report's reliability.
E. No Evidence of Partnership Post-1990 No evidence shows the complainant or his brothers worked as partners in M/s D.R. Kukreja & Co. post-16.08.1990. The partnership deed requires partners to maintain accounts, but no such records were produced. Income tax returns (Ex. DW-1) show no income from the firm post-1990, and the joint bank account closure lacks a substantiated complaint.
F. Prosecution Evidence Supports Defense Witnesses confirm a 1989-1991 family settlement distributing properties, with no evidence excluding the partnership firm. Mohan Kukreja, who founded the firm in 1969, received it in the settlement. The CFSL report, signature changes, and partnership dissolution in 1990 support the defense, contradicting the prosecution's narrative.
G. Civil Proceedings Irrelevant Civil suit findings are not binding in criminal trials, per M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (1954) and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005). The prosecution's reliance on civil outcomes is baseless, as no judgments were exhibited, and criminal cases require independent evidence.
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL JAIN
RAHUL Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:01
+0530
23
5.3 JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
Forgery: Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) and Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) emphasize that forgery requires proof of a false document made by the accused, absent here. Latesh v. State of Maharashtra (2018) underscores reasonable doubt in forgery cases.
Delay in FIR: Harivadan Babubhai Patel (2013), Shanmugam (2013), and State of Rajasthan v. N.K. (2000) hold that unexplained delays undermine prosecution credibility.
Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings: M.S. Sheriff (1954), K.G. Premshanker (2002), and Iqbal Singh Marwah (2005) confirm criminal proceedings are independent, with higher proof standards.
Handwriting Expert Evidence: Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977), Bhagwan Kaur v. Maharaj Krishan Sharma (1973), and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) caution against relying solely on handwriting expert opinions without corroboration, which is lacking here.
The prosecution's case, marred by delays, inconsistencies, and lack of evidence, fails to prove forgery or cheating beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, Mohan Kukreja (deceased), deserves acquittal based on the evidence and legal precedents cited.
6. WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Written arguments on behalf of the complaint in brief were that D R Kukreja & Co. was a registered partnership of five brothers. The accused, Mohan Kukreja, falsely claimed to be the eldest and sole proprietor by relying FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL JAIN Date: JAIN 2025.08.19 11:14:04 +0530 23 on forged retirement deeds, despite the undisputed fact that Ram Chander Kukreja (now deceased) was the eldest. The complainants never signed any such documents, and this forgery was confirmed by the CFSL during proceedings in the Delhi High Court. Using these forged documents, Mohan Kukreja opened bank accounts and claimed control over the firm. A civil suit was filed, and the fraud surfaced in 1993, prompting the complainants to file the present complaint. The delay in filing was due to concealment by the accused, not inaction. Throughout the prolonged trial, spanning over five years of cross- examination (2018-2023), the accused failed to produce any credible defense. Their claims have been rejected up to the Supreme Court, and the firm premises remain under the custody of a court-appointed receiver. Accused no. 2, Madan Kukreja, was complicit in the conspiracy, having repeatedly supported the forged documents and never seeking discharge during the trial. He only claimed innocence at the final stage. The accused's claim that a preliminary investigation was mandatory is legally untenable; under Section 154 CrPC, no such requirement exists in non-matrimonial cases, and due process was followed. PW-2 never stated that there was no investigation; rather, the case was transferred for vigilance scrutiny. Despite claiming that the complainants retired in 1990, the accused themselves submitted firm registration documents and ITRs signed by all partners after that date, exposing the falsity of their claim. Sunder Kukreja's Wealth Tax return also supported continued association with the firm. Relevant documents, including ITRs, were seized by the IO, and certified copies of original documents (kept in High Court custody) were used in the trial. The accused's claim of an oral family settlement is unsupported and was never raised until 1994. Madan Kukreja's repeated assertion of having received a meager ₹50,000 as settlement is implausible, given the high value of the commercial FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.08.19 11:14:07 +0530 23 property. His conduct has delayed the case by 33 years, during which time elder brother Ram Chander Kukreja passed away without seeing justice. The claim that there has been no litigation in recent years is false, as the accused have filed baseless criminal cases to harass the complainants. The CFSL report, which confirmed the forgery, was never challenged in civil or criminal proceedings. Its author could not testify due to illness, but the findings remain valid. The accused never cross-examined PW-4 on the CFSL report, further demonstrating their acceptance of its conclusions. Though original documents were in High Court custody, the evidence supports application of Section 471 IPC. There are glaring inconsistencies between the vouchers and retirement deed dates, further exposing the forgery. The complainants therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court convict the accused, reject their baseless defenses, and pass such further orders as may be just.
7. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE 7.1 Issue A: Proof of Forgery (Sections 463 and 464 IPC) 7.1.1 The prosecution alleges that the retirement deed (Ex. PW-3/B) and vouchers dated 16.08.1990 were forged to deprive the complainants of their partnership shares. Let us reproduce the sections for better understanding.
463. Forgery.--
"Whoever makes any false documents or 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"
464. Making a false document. --
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL JAIN RAHUL Date: JAIN 2025.08.19 11:14:10 +0530 23
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--First -- Who dishonestly or fradulently--
(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 of 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 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 practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
7.1.2. Under Section 463 IPC, forgery requires making a false document with intent to cause damage or injury, commit fraud, or induce belief in its FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.08.19 11:14:13 +0530 23 genuineness. Section 464 IPC defines a false document as one made dishonestly or fraudulently by a person claiming to be someone else, altering a document without authority, or deceiving another into signing it. The CFSL report (Ex. PW-9/A) is central to this allegation. It concludes that the questioned signatures (Q1-Q3 for Ram Chand Kukreja, Q7-Q9 for Sunder Kukreja) show signs of imitation (e.g., hesitation, pen lifts), while no opinion is offered on Q10-Q12 (Raj Kumar Kukreja). However, the report's reliability is questionable for several reasons. The report's author, S.L. Mukhi, was not examined due to his Parkinson's disease, and PW-9 (Alka Gupta) only identified his signatures without knowledge of the report's preparation (cross-examination, 19.10.2024). Section 293 CrPC allows CFSL reports to be admitted without examining the author, but the defense correctly argues that the lack of cross-examination undermines its evidentiary value, as held in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210, which cautions against relying solely on handwriting expert opinions without corroboration. Perusal of the evidence reveals that the FSL report was tendered in evidence by PW 9 Alka Gupta who identified the signatures of the author of FSL report Sh. S.L. Mukhi. During cross examination she deposed that she did not prepare the report and she wasn't aware as to when the report was prepared. She further admitted the suggestion that she was not involved in preparing the report. Now, the issue is whether such report can be relied on when the author of the report has not been subjected to cross examination.
7.1.3. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the prosecution called a witness who was just cognizant of the signatures of the author. The prosecution should have called an expert who could have analysed the report and give his opinion in the court so that such witness could have been cross examined.
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL RAHUL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:16
+0530
23
Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the witness suffered from Parkinson disease and it was not the fault of the prosecution that the witness couldn't depose.
He further argued that the FSL report was sufficiently proved as the signatures were identified.
7.1.4. This court is in agreement with the arguments of ld. Counsels for the accused that the report is not proved as the author of the report was never cross examined. Further , the prosecution didn't call any other expert from CFSL who could have analysed the report and give his opinion thereon and thus subject himself to cross examination.
7.1.5. Further Ld. Counsels for accused argued that report in itself is just a handwriting opinion and it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that such evidence is a weak form of evidence and the same cannot form basis of conviction solely. Further, he argued that even if the report is deemed to be proved, the report does not conclude that the retirement deed and the voucher were forged. It was argued that the report concluded that two signatures were imitation of genuine signatures and it didn't conclude that they were forged.
7.1.6 FSL report concluded that two of the signatures are drawn slowly and showed inherent signs of imitation of the genuine signatures such as drawn and hesitating line quality, careful joining of strokes and unusual pen stops and pen lifts etc. Further, the questioned signatures also disagrees with standard signatures in minute and inconspicuous writing characteristics. While the author/expert was unable to express opinion on the third questioned signature. Thus, essentially it concluded that two of the signature were imitation of genuine signatures. After perusal of reasons of the same, it can be safely concluded that the report concluded that the two signatures were indeed forged.
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL RAHUL
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:20
+0530
23
7.1.7. But as discussed above, this was the opinion of handwriting expert of CFSL and he should have gone through the test of cross examination upon his opinion in the report. Without the same the report is not reliable. The report is also not admissible under Section 293 Crpc. Let us reproduce Section 293 CrP.C :-
293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.
"(1)Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this Section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.(2)The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.(3)Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.(4)This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely :-(a)any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;(b)[ the Chief Controller of Explosives;] [Substituted by Act 25 of 2005, Section 26, for Cl. (b) (w.e.f. 23-6-2006). Prior to its substitution, Cl. (b) read as under :- [(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;].](c)the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;(d)the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;(e)the Director [Deputy Director or Assistant Director] [Inserted by Act 45 of 1978, Section 21 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
(f)the Serologist to the Government.(g)[ any other Government Scientific Expert specified, by notification, by the Central Government for this purpose.] [Added by Act 25 of 2005, Section 26 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).]"
7.1.8. Now, the expert was Sr. Scientific Officer cum Asstt. Chemical examiner to the government CFSL. Thus , he comes under clause 4(a) and it appears from the reading of Section 293 Crpc that such report may be used as FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL JAIN RAHUL Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:22
+0530
23
evidence in the present trial and the court may also summon and examine any such expert or expert may unless the court expressly declared to appear personally depute any responsible officer who is conversant with facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in the court on his behalf. Now, careful reading of Section 293 (1) shows that the matter should have been duly submitted to him for examination and report in the course of any proceeding under this code. But in the present case the questioned signatures were not submitted for analysis in the course of the investigation rather they were submitted for analysis in the civil suit. Thus, Section 293 CrP.C is not applicable in the present case. Howsoever, clause 2 of the section gives the discretion to the court to summon the expert as to the subject matter of the report and clause 3 allows any other responsible officer conversant with facts of the case to depose. The court in the present case summoned the expert but he could depose due to the Parkisnson disease and then the officer on his behalf and categorically stated that she is not conversant with the facts of the case. She did not have any knowledge about the case and admitted in cross examination that she was not involved in preparing the report. Thus, this court has come to the conclusion that the report in unreliable.
7.1.9. Moreover, this court is in agreement with Ld. Counsel for accused that even if the report is deemed to be proved, it doesn't not give any opinion as to who has forged the questioned signatures. The report doesn't conclude so as the specimen signatures were never taken by the IO for comparison in the investigation. Without such opinion, this court doesn't have any evidence as whether the accused persons had forged the retirement deed and vouchers or not.
7.1.10. The complainant's argument that the documents were submitted by Mohan Kukreja in a civil suit (Suit No. 2190/1992) does not prove he forged them.
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL RAHUL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:25
+0530
23
Submission of a document in court does not inherently establish authorship of forgery. No other evidence, such as witness testimony or documentary proof, links the accused to the creation of the alleged forged documents. Thus, the prosecution fails to prove the ingredients of Sections 463 and 464 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
7.2. Issue B: Involvement of the Accused in Forgery and Cheating 7.2.1. Even assuming the documents were forged, the prosecution must prove the accused committed the forgery or used the forged documents with dishonest intent to cheat under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, and induced wrongful loss under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution's case rests on the complainants' denial of signing the retirement deed,the accused's alleged claim on 03.06.1992 that the complainants had retired and received Rs. 50,000 each (Ex. PW-4/A) and the CFSL report suggesting imitation of two signatures. However, significant gaps undermine this:
7.2.2. No Direct Evidence Against Accused: The IO never seized the disputed documents, as they were submitted in the civil suit, nor collected the accused's specimen signatures. The prosecution's failure to investigate the authorship of the signatures leaves no evidence linking Mohan or Madan Kukreja to the forgery. The prosecution relies on PW-6 (Rakesh Sharma), who claimed the accused presented the retirement deed on 03.06.1992. However, his testimony is inconsistent, as he admitted not entering the ransacked office and being there only to collect a cheque (cross-examination, 07.03.2023). His claim of recognizing the complainants' signatures is unreliable, given his limited business dealings with only Sunder Kukreja (cross-examination, 28.01.2023). Madan Kukreja, a co-
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL RAHUL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:28
+0530
23
retiree under the same deed, had no motive to forge documents, as he did not benefit from the partnership's control. No evidence shows his active participation or intent. The defense highlights that a family settlement occurred between 1989- 1991, distributing properties among the brothers (PW-3 cross-examination, 15.12.2017). The prosecution failed to prove the complainants continued as active partners post-1990, undermining the claim of wrongful loss.
7.2.3. The prosecution's reliance on Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 is misplaced, as it requires proof of the accused's intent to deceive by making or using a false document. Here, the mere use of the retirement deed in civil court does not establish fraudulent intent without evidence of forgery by the accused. Thus, the charges under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC are not proved.
7.3 Issue C: Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) The charge of criminal conspiracy requires evidence of an agreement between the accused to commit an illegal act. The prosecution alleges connivance between Mohan and Madan Kukreja but provides no evidence of such an agreement. The CFSL report's silence on the accused's signatures, combined with Madan Kukreja's status as a retiree, negates any inference of a coordinated plan.
Conspiracy requires proof of a meeting of minds, which is absent here. The charge under Section 120-B IPC fails.
7.4. Issue D: Delay and Inconsistencies 7.4.1. Complainant alleged that incident when they came to Sapna Cinema and found out that they have been retired by preparation of alleged forged deed took place on 3rd June 1992 but the complaint to police has been made on 21.11.1993 after a delay of 1.5 years. There is no sufficient explanantion for this FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL Date:
JAIN JAIN 2025.08.19 11:14:31 +0530 23 delay. Complainant was cross examined about the same and he voluntarily said that he had made several complaints to SHO and other police officers between 03.06.1992 and 23.11.1993 but none of those complaints have been brought on record by the complainant. It is highly suspicious that complainant kept waiting for 1.5 years to lodge a complaint with the police. The FIR was lodged on 23.11.1993, 1.5 years after the alleged incident on 03.06.1992, with no satisfactory explanation.
PW-4 claimed prior complaints were made but provided no documentary evidence (cross-examination, 24.04.2019). The defense correctly argues that this delay, coupled with the absence of corroboration, raises doubts about the prosecution's case, as held in Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013) 7 SCC 45, where unexplained delay was deemed fatal absent credible justification.
7.4.2. Additionally, inconsistencies in witness testimonies further erode credibility. Then , there were contradictions about the incident in the complaint Ex. PW4/A wherein the complainant Sunder Kukreja alleges that On June 3, 1992, when he, along with his brothers Ram Chand Kukreja, Raj Kumar Kukreja, and friends Mr. Davis John, Suresh Dahiya, Alam, Madan Lal, and Rakesh Sharma, entered their office at Cinema Building, they were shocked to discover that the cupboards had been broken into and their files and other important documents had been removed. As they were inquiring about this damage, as well as the routine work of the cinema and the receipts and payments position from the manager, Mohan Kukreja and Madan Kukreja became furious. They stated that the group had no right to question these matters because they had all executed a Deed of Retirement dated August 16, 1990, in favor of Mohan Kukreja. They further claimed that the document had been signed by all of them and that each had been paid Rs. 50,000 from the firm as full and final settlement of their share and account FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL JAIN RAHUL Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:34
+0530
23
in the firm. He was astonished to hear this disclosure and firmly denied having executed any such Deed of Retirement. His brothers, Ram Chand Kukreja and Raj Kumar Kukreja, who were present with him, also denied having signed such a document. Complainant alleged that Mohan Kukreja, with the connivance of Madan Kukreja, had intentionally fabricated or forged the document, namely the Deed of Retirement dated August 16, 1990, with the intent to deprive him and his brothers, Ram Chand Kukreja and Raj Kumar Kukreja, of the benefits of the income from M/S D. R. Kukreja & Co., which operates Sapna Cinema at East of Kailash. This business represents assets worth crores of rupees belonging to the firm. Now, Raj Kumar Kureja came into the witness box and deposed about the incident but only mentioned that he came alongwith his brothers RC Kukreja and Sunder Kukreja. He didn't mention about any of the other persons mentioned by the complainant Complainant Sunder Kukreja PW 4 also deposed in the court that he went along with his brothers and didn't mention in the court about the other persons. In the cross examination as well he deposed that he went his two brothers. PW-4's complaint (Ex. PW-4/A) mentions accompanying friends (Davis Johns, Suresh Dahiya, etc.), but neither PW-3 nor PW-4 mentioned them in court. PW-6's contradictory testimony about not entering the premises undermines the prosecution's narrative (cross-examination, 07.03.2023). The absence of testimony from other alleged witnesses (e.g., Davis Johns, Madan Lal) weakens the prosecution's case.
7.4.3. These discrepancies, combined with the delay, suggest the complaint may have been an afterthought, possibly motivated by the ongoing civil suit (Suit No. 2190/1992), as argued by the defense.
8. CONCLUSION FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja Digitally signed by RAHUL JAIN RAHUL Date:
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:37
+0530
23
The prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt:
- The CFSL report is unreliable due to the non-examination of its author, lack of clarity, and failure to link the accused to the alleged forgery.
- No direct or circumstantial evidence establishes that Mohan Kukreja or Madan Kukreja forged the retirement deed or vouchers or used them with dishonest intent to cheat.
- The charge of criminal conspiracy lacks evidence of an agreement between the accused.
- The 1.5-year delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the absence of corroborative evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution's case.
In light of Latesh v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 3 SCC 66, suspicion cannot replace legal proof, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented falls short of this standard. Mohan Kukreja and Madan Kukreja, against whom no specific evidence exists, are entitled to acquittal.
9. ORDER
- Mohan Kukreja (Accused No. 1) and Madan Kukreja (Accused No. 2): Acquitted of all charges under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
- The bail bonds of Mohan Kukreja and Madan Kukreja stand discharged.
- The case file be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja
signed by
RAHUL RAHUL
Date:
JAIN
JAIN 2025.08.19
11:14:42
+0530
23
Digitally signed
RAHUL by RAHUL JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.08.19
11:14:47 +0530
Announced in open court ( RAHUL JAIN)
on i.e. 07.08.2025 JMFC-01(SE), Saket Courts,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 428/1993 State Vs. Mohan Kukreja