Delhi District Court
Praveen Wadhwa vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 5 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-03, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010079552023
Crl. Rev. No. 479/2023
PRAVEEN WADHWA
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal Wadhwa
R/o A-4/31A, Supriya Apartment,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi - 110063
.....Revisionist
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi
...Respondent
Date of institution : 27.07.2023
Date of reserving the order : 05.09.2024
Date of pronouncement : 05.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC preferred against the order dated 04.05.2023, passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 1/15 South-East District, Delhi in Criminal case no. 96455/2016 titled State Vs. Praveen Wadhwa arising out of FIR No. 262/2012 PS Kotla Mubarakpur, whereby, after hearing arguments, the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to order framing of charge u/s 467/466/471 IPC r/w Section 466/467 IPC and Section 420/468 IPC against the revisionist. The said FIR was registered at the instance of Smt. Renu Manchanda (sister of revisionist). The revisionist is the person chargesheeted in the said FIR. For the sake of convenience, the revisionist herein shall be referred to as 'accused' henceforth.
GROUNDS
2. The grounds cited by the revisionist against the impugned order are as under :
A). In view of Ld. Trial Court, accused has committed an offence u/s 420 IPC with DDA that means accused dishonestly induced DDA and upon that inducement, DDA gives a property / valuable security i.e., the mutation certificate. In this regard, it is submitted that hypothetically, even if it is presumed that the accused had the knowledge that the Relinquishment Deed is forged, despite that accused had applied for the mutation certificate. As per chargesheet and findings of Ld. Trial Court, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. Because on such inducement, DDA has not given any property to the accused. Mutation certificate is not a valuable security because it does not create any right or title upon a person in whose favour it is granted, it is only for the purpose of depositing tax, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Bhimbai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) through Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 2/15 LRs VS. Arthur Import and Export Company and Ors., (2019)
3 SCC 191. Moreover, DDA has cancelled the mutation, could not be construed as cheating, in any stretch of imagination because otherwise, all the application rejected / cancelled by DDA would amount to cheating. There is absence of malafide intention as, it has come on record, that there was a family dispute, family settlement was also arrived at, as per the Will of the deceased father of the complainant and as per the nomination by the mother of the complainant before the society, accused was going to be the owner of the subject premises, then there was no motive for him to commit any illegal act. Moreover, it is an admitted position that complainant as well as all the other legal heirs had signed the Relinquishment Deed. Therefore, it is highly improbable that applicant will put a fake stamp of the Sub-Registrar on the relinquishment deed.
(B). As per chargesheet and findings of Ld. Trial Court, no offence u/s 466, 467 or 468 IPC is made out. It is pertinent to mention that only on the vague, non speaking ground that 'there are prima facie material and ground which would show that the accused had put the stamp of Registrar on the Relinquishment Deed' Ld. Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner, without even discussing a single piece of evidence, which shows that petitioner has put the stamp of the Registrar on the Relinquishment Deed. It is pertinent to mention herein that the charges can not be framed and prosecution can not linger, limp and continue merely on the Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 3/15 basis of mere hope and expectation that in trial some material may be found to implicate the accused. Reliance is placed in Satish Mehra V. State of NCT of Delhi and Another AIR 2013 SC 506.
(C). As per the chargesheet and findings of the Ld. Trial Court no offence u/s 471 IPC is made out. Finding of Ld. Trial court qua the offecne u/s 471 IPC, it is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has framed the charges on the basis of presumption, that applicant might have forged the document and the law w.r.t. framing of charges / discharge is crystal clear that charges can not be framed on the basis of presumption but it requires higher degree of believing a fact than presumption but it requires higher degree of believing a fact than presumption i.e., grave suspicion, which is even greater than only suspicion and there is no evidence on record, which shows that petitioner had any knowledge that the relinquishment deed was forged, as explained by the petitioner, in his written submissions that at the relevant time, petitioner was bed ridden due to his accident the formalities including the preparation of documents, submission of application for mutation etc. were done by the husband of the complainant. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Vikram Johar V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2019) 14 SCC 207.
(D). Because there is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that revisionist had intention of cheating and for that purpose, he prepared alleged Relinquishment Deed. It is clear Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 4/15 from the Will dated 02.01.1996 that after the death of Sh. Krishan Lal Wadhwa, the said property will be transferred to Ms. Motiya Wadhwa and after the death of Ms. Motiya Wadhwa, it will be transferred to the petitioner. That this was all a greedy game of the husband of the complainant in which the innocent petitioner was unknowingly trapped because of the faith and regard the petitioner had for his brother-in-law. The complainant Renu Manchanda also signed and put her thumb impression on the alleged RD where her photograph and voter ID no. were already mentioned. That except Renu Manchanda (complainant) all other legal heirs had not stated in their statements of 161 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner had not made the Relinquishment Deed.
(E). Because Ld. Trial Court had not appreciated the fact in this case the petitioner was not even required to do mutation as it was not the matter of intestate succession. There was no need for a relinquishment deed as the petitioner was already the nominee as per the society records and he will be the only owner after the death of Smt. Motia Wadhwa as per the Will of the deceased father of the petitioner. During the investigation, the petitioner had cooperated with the police official, he had supplied all the relevant information and even had given his hand writing sample which nowhere matches with the hand writing of the Voter ID NO. of the complainant, mentioned in alleged Relinquishment Deed. Furthermore, the IO had never taken the hand writing sample of the husband of the complainant. That it is important to mention that the Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 5/15 Relinquishment Deed was neither made by the petitioner nor the documents were furnished by the petitioner and all the documents are in the possession of Rajiv Manchanda (husband of complainant). That the documents were made by the husband of the complainant in 2004, mutation took place in 2010 as per guidance of the husband of the complainant, and thereafter the FIR was lodged in 2012 by complainant. Isn't it strange that till the time petitioner was giving money as per the family settlement and the Court settlement all was going good and the time the petitioner stopped making the payment the FIR was lodged in 2012 by complainant. That the investigation neither prove that the forgery was committed nor clearly exhibits the facts of the case.
(F). The entire case against the petitioner is motived and the investigation conducted in a biased and guided manner, rather than being free fair and proper. That from the facts submitted earlier, it is clear that the investigation conducted by the police and arraigning the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law, and that the entire investigation is a biased investigation, not guided by fairness, but by bias. The investigation is grossly actuated with malice and is completely non-est; without juridiction; hit by the vice of the legal maims;
"debile fundamentum fallit opus", meaning thereby that when the foundsation falls, everthing falls, and "sublato fundamento cadit opus", meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.
(G). Because the reputation of the petitioner is being Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 6/15 tarnished and irreparable loss is being caused to the petitioner due to pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
(H). Because the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed against the petitioner is contrary to the law of the land and is thus liable to be set aside.
3. A prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2023.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT
4. The prayer has been vehemently opposed by the State. It is argued on behalf of the State that the revisionist has been correctly charged u/s 467/466/471 IPC r/w Section 466/467 IPC and Section 420/468 IPC vide the impugned order.
DISCUSSION
5. This court has considered the records as well as the submissions made by the parties.
Law On Framing Of Charge And Discharge
6. Before delving into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to refer to the settled law on framing of charge, since the essence of the arguments raised on behalf of revisionists is that the no charge could have been framed against them.
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Varun Bhatia vs. State and Another 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5288, has discussed the different facets of the law in this regard in the following fashion :-
Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 7/15 ".................................................................................. ...................................................................................
"10.The law on charge is contained under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C. for offences triable in Courts of Session and in cases of Trial of Warrant Cases by Magistrates instituted upon a police report, Sections 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C. deals with the same. For reference, Section 239 and 240 of Cr. P.C. are extracted as under:
239. When accused shall be discharged.--
If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
240. Framing of charge.--
(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried"
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 has considered the powers of Courts in respect of the framing of charge and discharge and the fact that a prima facie case would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant principles as enunciated in the said decision read as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr. P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie cases would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 8/15 suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, 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 alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal..."
(Emphasis supplied)
12.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657, after discussing several judicial precedents, has summed up the law regarding framing of charge as under:
"27. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 9/15 enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice..."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, the fundamental basis for forming an opinion regarding the framing of charges revolves around determining whether there is adequate evidence on record to establish, prima facie, the commission of an offence. A 'prima facie' case would imply that there must be enough material or evidence that, when viewed at its face value, gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the accused may have committed the alleged offence.
14. Another important factor to be considered is the sufficiency of material on record. The Courts have to see as to whether the material placed on record is sufficient enough to establish a prima facie case against an accused and justify initiation of trial against an accused.
................................................................................. ................................................................................."
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. The brief facts of the case have been correctly noted by the Ld. Magistrate in the impugned order dated 04.05.2023. The same are reproduced below for ready reference:-
Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 10/15 " ........ Brief fact of the present case are that the complainant is the real sister of the accused who had alleged that the accused had prepared a forged and fabricated relinquishment deed and had sought mutation of the property bearing number 13-A, Supriya Apartments, A-4 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063, which was owned by their late father Shri K.L. Wadhwa. It is the case of the prosecution that the said Sh. K.L. Wadhwa had died leaving behind four children namely one son (the accused herein) and three daughters (complainant, Romi Trekroo and Poonam Sabharwal) and his wife (mother of the accused and the complainant). It is allegation that the accused had prepared a relinquishment deed, wherein the signatures of his three sisters and his mother were taken and their interest in toto were relinquished in favor of the accused. It is alleged that the said relinquishment deed was not registered before the sub registrar and the election voter ID card number pertaining to the complainant mentioned on the relinquishment deed was found to be incorrect............."
9. It would be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the reasoning given by the Ld. Magistrate while deciding the submissions made by the accused on the point of charge:-
".............As per the statement recorded of the other two sisters under section 161 Cr.P.C. (legal heirs of the owner namely Late Sh. K. L. Wadhwa) namely Poonam Sabharwal and Romi Trekroo, both have admitted their signatures and thumb impressions on the relinquishment deed. They have stated that even the complainant had also put her signatures and thumb impressions on the said relinquishment deed. The mother of the accused and complainant namely Smt. Motia Wadhwa, has also similarly deposed in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent to note that in her complaint to the SHO PS Kotla Mubarakpur, she had nowhere denied that the said Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 11/15 relinquishment deed did not bear her signatures or thumb impression.
Now, it must be examined whether it was the DDA who was deceived by the act of the accused? As the mutation was in fact granted in favor of the accused however, later mutation was cancelled.
During the investigation IO had sought information from the Delhi development authority regarding guidelines for transfer/mutation of residential plots. During investigation, the said guidelines were provided to the IO. Upon perusal, it is clear that for the purpose of mutation in cases of intestate succession on demise of a lessee/sub-lessee in favour of legal heirs is done on the strength of an affidavit of the applicant, indemnity bond, relinquishment deed, death certificate in original, proof of relationship, no objection certificate (N.O.C.) or redemption deed, if the plot is mortgaged, photographs and signatures of the mutatee duly attested by a Class-I gazetted officer, no objection certificate (N.O.C.) from the society and copy of 'D' form/completion certificate duly attested. All the above documents have been seized during the investigation. The mutation which was granted in favour of the accused was cancelled as the relinquishment deed was found to be unregistered.
It is the case of the prosecution that the deception was complete the moment mutation was granted in favour of the accused. Ld. APP had also stressed upon this fact that the offence under section 420 IPC is made out as mutation was in fact granted in favour of the accused.
Section 420 deals with certain aggravated forms or specified classes of cheating. It deals with cases of cheating, whereby, the deceived person is dishonestly induced:
(a) to deliver any property to any person; or
(b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security; or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 12/15 security.
Further Valuable security under IPC is defined as "30. "Valuable security". --The words "valuable security"
denotes a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right."
The relinquishment deed is a valuable security within the meaning of section 30 IPC. The argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the relinquishment deed was made by the brother-in-law of the accused, cannot be entertained at this moment, as the onus would lie upon the accused to explain the same under section 106 Indian Evidence Act, which could only be proved at the time of the trial. The argument that the accused was not required to register the relinquishment deed in the first place, as he was already a nominee of the said property and would have gotten the property after his mother, cannot be a ground to not frame a charge, as the fact remains still that the relinquishment deed was not registered, yet it bore the stamps of the registrar and the accused never denied his signature on the same, therefore, strong suspicion arises against the accused that he had forged the said relinquishment deed.
While this court concedes that merely putting an incorrect election voter ID card number on the relinquishment deed may not amount to forgery. However, grave suspicion has arisen for framing a charge under section 467 IPC as there are prime-facie material and ground which would show that the accused had put the stamp of the registrar on the relinquishment deed, purporting it to be a registered document and submitted it to the DDA, for the purpose of mutation as it bears the signature of the accused and he never denied his signature.
Further, by putting stamps of the registrar on the relinquishment deed, which is a document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, amount to Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 13/15 forgery and grace suspicion also arises from the said fact to frame charges under section 466 IPC.
Further, the accused has used the alleged forged relinquishment deed for the purpose of mutation, grace suspicion has arisen from this fact to frame charges under section 471 read with section 466/467 IPC.
Further, the accused has cheated the DDA by depositing the allegedly forged relinquishment deed and thereby dishonestly induced the DDA to grant mutation in his favour and thus, grave suspicion has arisen against the accused for framing charged under section 420 IPC and 468 IPC.
Accordingly, charges are framed against the accused u/s. 467/466/471 r/w. 466/467 IPC /420/468 IPC..........."
10. It is apparent from the present revision petition that the very grounds agitated before this Court by the accused were put forth before the Ld. Magistrate as well. The impugned order reflects a clear application of mind by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order does not reflect that the Ld. Trial Court has applied any principle of law incorrectly. This Court does not find any reason to depart from the view taken by Ld. Trial Court while dealing with the said grounds. In the considered opinion of this court, Ld. Trial Court has correctly observed that the matter requires a complete trial so that the witnesses could be examined and truth could be culled out.
11. The order passed by Ld. Trial Court does not seem to be arbitrary, perverse or irrational nor does it reflect any jurisdictional error which occasioned any injustice in the matter. The present petition is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
12. TCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.
13. Revision file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 14/15 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.05 16:43:18 +0530 Dictated and Announced in open Court on 05.12.2024 (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi Crl. Revision. No. 479/2023 Praveen Wadhwwa Vs. State 15/15