Delhi District Court
Ashok Sehgal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 August, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF V.K. BANSAL : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 8 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
Ashok Sehgal
S/o Sh. Ram Sehgal
R/o J27, Rajouri Garde,
First Floor,
New Delhi. .... Revisionist
VERSUS
STATE (NCT of Delhi)
Sikender Singh
S/o Bishen Singh
R/o Mansa Mandi,
Distt.Bhatinda (Punjab)
Lakhpat Rai (since deceased)
S/o Devi Chand
R/o VPOSamrala Distt. Ludhiana (Punjab)
Vinod Ghai
S/o Dina Nath
R/o Mata Rani Mohalla,
Khanna Distt. Ludhiana,
Punjab
...... Respondents
Date of Receipt : 30.07.2007
Date of Conclusion of arguments : 03.08.2009
Date of Decision : 11.08.2009
............ contd.
2
JUDGMENT :
1. Present revision has been preferred against the order dt. 28..6.10 passed by Ld. ACMM which he dismissed the application of the revisionist moved U/s 340 Cr.PC.
2. Notice of this revision petition was given to the State and trial court record was also requisitioned.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Addl. PP for the State and have perused the record.
4. Facts in brief giving rise to the present revision are that on the basis of a complaint of the revisionist FIR No. 279/89 PS Jahangir Puri was registered. The charge sheet was filed against five persons namely Lakhpat, Sikander, V.K. Ghai , K.S. Cheema and Sarabjeet Singh. Vide Order dt. 28.8.93 Sh. Vinod Kumar the then Ld. MM discharged the accused Sarabjeet and K.S. Cheema. That order was not challenged. Later on Crl.No.87/96 titled Vinod Ghai Vs. State and Crl. 89/96 titled Sikander Vs. State were filed. These were decided by Sh.A.K. Pathak the then Ld. ASJ vide order dt.1/5/97 where in it was held that order of discharge of accused K.S. Cheema and Sarabjeet has become final. The contention of the revisionist is that both K.S. Cheema and Sarabjeet filed an affidavit in the court of Ld. MM Vinod Kumar after fraudulently ............ contd.
3adding some lines at the end of para three and before the para four of the affidavit dt.8.3.90, admittedly executed by the revisionist at the time of compromise of civil suit. The affidavit was handed over to accused Sikander Singh. The lines allegedly added are "K.S. Cheema and Sarabjeet Singh , both officials of CRPF were not involved in this criminal case but names of both persons were wrongly mentioned."
It is alleged that both the respondents have added these lines later on to get the benefit . When the affidavit was executed these lines were never mentioned which is also evident from the photocopy of affidavit which was enclosed. The forgery has been committed by Sarabjeet and K.S. Cheema in order to get themselves discharged fraudulently and they filed this false and fabricated document before the court. Ld. ACMM after considering all the contentions dismissed the application. Hence the revision.
5. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that a civil suit was pending between the revisionist here in and respondents in the court of Sh.N.K. Kaushik the then Ld. Sub Judge Delhi. The matter was compromised. The application Under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC was filed by the parties to the suit and the statement of the parties were recorded on 19.2.90. In view of the settlement the court was pleased to dismiss the civil suit as compromised vide order dt.19.2.90. It is ............ contd.
4submitted that at the time of above said compromise the complainant also executed the compromise deed, receipt and affidavit which were handed over to accused Sikander Singh as the same were required by him for the record. The photocopy there of were retained by the revisionist. It is alleged that no compromise have ever taken place between revisionist /complainant and the accused persons with respect to the criminal cases. When the affidavit was executed the above said lines "K.S. Cheema and Sarabjeet Singh , both officias of CRPF were not involved in this criminal case but names of both persons were wrongly mentioned." were never mentioned in the said affidavit by the revisionist/complainant. This fact is very much clear from the photocopy of affidavit enclosed. In fact these lines were added later on by Sarabjeet and K.S. Cheema in order to get themselves discharged. The accused persons filed the above said false and fabricated affidavit before this court to get the discharge order . The factum of adding of the above said lines in the affidavit filed before this court by the accused persons is apparent on the face of it. The accused persons have intentionally, willingly, fraudulently with mala fide intention to play fraud with the court filed the affidavit by adding the above said lines with different typewriter and the sequence of typing is also not in order. It is further alleged that the different impression of the typing ribbon is also very clearly visible It is prayed that ............ contd.
5keeping in view all these facts as accused persons had played fraud by filing a false and fabricated affidavit action be taken against K.S. Cheema and Sarabjeet Singh U/s 340 Cr.PC.
6. From the contention/allegations made it is clear that alleged affidavit was filed in the court after forging the same. The alleged affidavit was not forged after it was filed in the court meaning thereby that there is no forgery or perjury to the judicial record. It is settled law that if the forgery has been committed before the filing of the document in the court then the complaint U/s 340 Cr.PC is not maintainable and right course available to the aggrieved party is to file a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC before the competent court having jurisdiction. Admittedly in this case the alleged forgery if any has been committed before filing of the document in the court.
7. Even otherwise the case of the complainant is based upon the photocopy of the affidavit and he alleges that these lines have been added subsequently. No evidence whatsoever has been brought on record that these lines were not there in the original affidavit. After going through the affidavit I also found that the spacing between two paras is also in accordance with the spacing of the other paragraphs. Even in para 3 of affidavit which is reproduced here in : "3. That I lodged F.I.R. No. 273/89 dated 22.8.1989 at ps Jahangirpuri, u/s 323/325/357/365/392/427/447/506/148/149 IPC etc. Now the investigation of the said case is pending before crime branch. Now I am not interested to persue this ............ contd.
6criminal case. I withdraw the said criminal case against all persons who are involved in this case. Karnail Singh Cheema and Sarbjeet singh of CRPF were not involved in this criminal case but names of both persons were wrongly mentioned."
8. It is clearly mentioned that he is not interested to pursue this criminal case. It was also settled that he will withdraw the criminal case against all the accused persons involved in the case. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the above said lines in the affidavit. I am of the considered opinion that these lines were genuinely written and typed at the time of execution of affidavit and were not added subsequently.
9. In view of above discussions and also the fact that there is no evidence on record except the bald statement of revisionist these lines were added subsequently, I am of the view that trial court has rightly held and decided not to proceed U/s 340 Cr.PC. There is no merit in the revision the same is dismissed. Copy of this order along with trial court file be sent back to the Ld. Trial court. Revision file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11.08.2010 (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) ADDL. SESSION JUDGE ROHINI COURTS/DELHI ............ contd.
7............ contd.