Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 1 ... on 28 October, 2014
FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 IN THE COURT OF POORAN CHAND: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.: 09/88 PS: Subzi Mandi U/s : 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC State v. Ravi Kiran Nagpal Unique ID No.: 02401R0523982009 J U D G M E N T:
(a) S. No. of the case : 255/2
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Subhash Wason, CMM, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : In the year 1986
(d) Name of the accused : Ravi Kiran Nagpal s/o Sh. B.D.
Nagpal, r/o 10208/10217, Gali
no. 12, Beadon Pura, Karol
Bagh, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210
IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 20.10.2014.
(h) Final Order : Acquitted
(i) Date of such order : 28.10.2014
A. BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
In brief, it is the case of prosecution that in the year 1986 in eviction proceedings pending in the court of Sh. Prem Kumar, the then Ld ARC accused forged the signatures of Sh. S.K. Dey on vakalatnama, W/S and application moved before that court for taking possession in pursuance of eviction orders passed by that court and various other documents for the purpose to cheat that court and obtained a eviction decree from that court and also took the possession by State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 fraudulently and dishonestly.
2 After filing of charge sheet in the case, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and arguments on the point of charge advanced on behalf the accused, heard.
3 Vide order dated 10.09.1996, charge u/s 468 r/w section 120 B IPC, 471/209/210 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed and statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he pleaded innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case and did not lead any defence evidence.
Evidence Held:
5 A total of 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
6 PW1 SI Sanjiv Parmar deposed that on 29.04.1988, he was posted at P.S. Subzi Mandi and on that day, on the request of R.S. Pulia, he joined the investigation and signatures of S.K. Dey was taken in my presence and same are Ex. S1 to S7 on seven sheets signed by him at point A. He deposed that Mr. S.K. Dey had also handed over a letter dated 26.06.1983 in which he had admitted his signatures which was handed over to IO. Same is mark A and the signatures of S.K. Dey was encircled by the IO at point A in his presence.
7 PW2 T.R. Nehra deposed that SHO PS Subzi Mandi vide his memo dated 13.05.1988 and Inspector Crime vide his memo dated 22.02.1989 referred to CFSL certain documents for expert opinion. The documents referred were marked by him as Q1, Q2, Q8 and Q9 on documents mark A1, Q3 and Q10 on documents mark A2, Q4 on Q11 on document Mark A3, Q5 on Ex. R1, Q6 and Q6A on State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 documents marked A4, Q7 and Q12 on documents marked A5. He further deposed that he was also supplied standard signatures for the purpose of comparison with the questioned signatures and same were also marked by him as S1 to S7 on Ex. S1 to S7 respectively and specimen signatures marked by him on S8 to S31 and one admitted signatures marked by him as A1 on documents mark A. He deposed that all these documents were examined by him carefully with the help of scientific aids and he arrived at the following conclusion:
"The authorship of questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q5, Q7 could not be connected with the writer of specimen Signatures marked S1 to S9 and A1. He was unable to express any opinion regarding the questioned zerox copies signatures marked Q6 and Q6A in the absence of original documents. He was also not able to express any opinion on rest of the questioned items on the basis of standard materials sent. He proved his report vide Ex. PW2/A, which bears his signatures.
8 PW2 Sh. Prem Kumar, (inadvertently given number as PW2) the then ARC deposed that on 24.05.1986 he was holding the court of Additional Rent Controller Delhi and an eviction petition no. E145/86 R.K. Nagpal v. Saroj Kumar Dey and Beldev Raj filed u/s 14 (1) A & B of DRC Act was pending before me copy of the same is Ex. P1. He deposed that on 24.04.1986 he passed the order to issue summons, copy of order is Ex. PW2/A. On 13.05.1986 one person appeared as respondent no. 2 in person and on 19.05.1986 written statement on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2, application u/s 151 Cr.P.C., application u/o 23 rule 1 and 3 r/w section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2, the copies of these applications are Ex. P2 and P3. He deposed that one General Power of Attorney was filed along with this application, the same is Ex. P4. Vakalatnama was also filed by the advocate appearing for the above stated respondent, the same is Ex. P5. He deposed that on 29.05.1986 he pronouncement the judgment copy of the same is Ex. PW2/D. On 09.07.1986 the petitioner/DH filed an execution application and on 11.07.1986 order for issuance of warrants were passed and as per the report of the bailiff the said possession was delivered to the petitioner on 19.07.1986. He deposed that on 04.08.1996 respondent no. 1 filed an application u/o 9 rule 13 CPC Ex. P6 and vide order dated 04.08.1986 the State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 notice for the same to the DH and Local Commissioner was appointed to find out who is in possession of the premises in dispute, the copy of the order is Ex. PW2/E. He deposed that an application u/o 13 rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC, order 29 rule 9 is Ex. P7. The application was supported by affidavit which is Ex. P9. On 06.08.1987 local commissioner filed his report, the same is Ex. P10. He deposed that reply was also filed on behalf of petitioner to the application u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC as well as order 26 rule 3 CPC, copy of the same is Ex. P11. He further deposed that on 07.08.1986 an application u/o 1 rule 10 r/w 151 CPC was filed by Thyber Electronics, copy of which is Ex. P12 and same was replied by respondent no. 1 vide Ex. PW12. He further proved the rejoinder filed by respondent no. 1 vide Ex. P13, application of respondent no. 1 u/s 151 CPC vide Ex. P14, application u/s 26 rule 9 CPC filed by Khybar Electronics vide Ex. P15, affidavit vide Ex. P16, application u/s 26 rule 9 vide Ex. P17, another application u/o 6 rule 17 CPC, supported by an affidavit vide Ex. P18 and P19, objections to the report of L.C. Vide Ex. P20, another application of R.K. Nagpal u/s 10 r/w 151 CPC supported by an affidavit vide Ex. P21 and P22, reply to the application u/s 10 r/w 151 CPC supported by an affidavit dated 05.09.1986 vide Ex. P23 and P24, Similarly an application u/o 9 rule 13 for setting aside exparte order supported by an affidavit vide Ex P25 and P26, an application u/s 9 rule 9 for restoration supported by an affidavit vide Ex. P27 and P28, copy of order sheet from 04.08.1986 to 22.09.1986 vide Ex. PW2/E, his judgment dated 22.09.1996 vide Ex. PW2/F., complaint vide Ex. PW2/G, application u/s 1 rule 10 dated 19.09.1986 of Mohd. Zah vide Ex. P29.
9 PW3 R.A. Ahuja deposed that he has seen non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/-, somebody has purchased this blank stamp papers from him. He deposed that he cannot say who has brought the same from him and back of the stamp paper bears his signatures at point A. He deposed that stamp paper was in the name of Saroj Kumar Dey s/o Sh. R.K. Dey, Padam Nagar, Delhi and stamp paper was brought for the purposes of GPA. He deposed that the particulars of person who used to buy stamp papers was entered in the register maintained by him. At the time, we obtained signatures and when there is rush, they do not obtain the signatures and the endorsement on the back of the stamp paper is Ex. PW3/A, State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 which is in his hand.
10 PW4 Ct. Chet Ram deposed that on 16.05.1988 he was posted as Constable at PS Subzi Mandi and IO of the case SI Sanjeev Kumar handed over him a sealed envelope for depositing the same with CFSL. He deposed that he did not taper with the seal, so long as envelope remained in his custody and he deposited envelope with CFSL.
11 PW5 ACP Ishwar Singh deposed that on January 1987, he was posted as SHO at PS Subzi Mandi and he took the enquiry u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. ordered by Ld. CMM, Delhi from previous SHO. He deposed that he obtained the original documents from the court of Sh. A.K. Garg, the then ARC, comprising of written statement of respondent Baldev Ram and S.K. Dey, application u/s 151 CPC on their behalf, application under order 23 rule 1 and 2, General power of attorney executed by S.K. Dey, rent receipt, vakalatnama etc., from case eviction petition no. 145/86, from Ahlmad Daya Chand of the said court. He deposed that he also recorded the statement of Sh. Daya Chand, and gave his report to the Hon'ble Court on 15.11.1987 and same is collectively Ex. PW5/A running in 7 pages and bears his signatures at point A. He deposed that on the direction of Hon'ble Court, case FIR no. 9/88 was registered after making necessary endorsement by him. His endorsement is Ex. PW5/B and bears his signatures at point A and further investigation was handed over to SI Jagdish Chand and subsequently transferred to SI Rajbir. He deposed that documents were sent to CFSL for verification. Accused was arrested by SI Roshan Lal and later on investigation was transferred to Crime Branch.
12 PW6 Inspector Kulwant Singh deposed that on 09.11.1988 he was posted as SI Section VII, Crime Branch and on that day, investigation of this case was handed over to him. He deposed that during investigation he obtained the specimen signatures of accused R.K. Nagpal, his son Sandeep Nagpal, Navin Kochhar, S.R. Celly and submitted the same in CFSL, Lodhi Colony for comparison. He deposed that he also recorded the statement of Naresh Dhawan and B. Banerjee and on 28.12.1989 he was transferred to IGI Airport and further State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 investigation was conducted by some other police personnel and specimen signatures Ex. PW6/A-1 to A-15 was taken by him, which bears his signatures at point A. 13 PW7 Retd. Ct. Chet Ram deposed that on 16.05.1988 on the instruction of IO, he deposited a sealed envelope with the seal of NSC with a forwarding letter in CFSL. He deposed that till the time case property remained in his possession, it was not tampered with in any manner by anybody and his statement was recorded by the IO.
14 PW8 SI Jagdish Chander deposed that on 12.05.1987 he along with SHO Ishwar Singh came to court of Sh. A.K. Garg, the then ARC and after showing the orders to the concerned Ahlmad of Sh. A.K. Garg, the then ARC and collected the documents and same were seized vide seizure memo. He deposed that on 09.191899 FIR was registered and he handed over the case to SH for investigation and besides this, he did not do anything in the instant case.
15 PW9 Bhagwat Prasad Aggarwal deposed that he does not remember the exact date or month however, it was sometime in May 1986 he had appeared in the matter titled as R.K. Nagpal v. Saroj Kumar for petitioner and the matter was settled between the parties before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Prem Kumar the then ARC. He deposed that R.K. Nagpal petitioner and Baldev Raj appeared in the case and Sh. Baldev Raj appeared on behalf of respondent. Rs. 6500/- were paid by the petitioner to the respondent in his presence before the court and to this effect the statement of parties were recorded by the Hon'ble Court. He deposed that thereafter, the order was pronounced and to the best of his memory, it was signed by the respective counsels. He deposed that his statement was never recorded by the police.
16 PW10 R.P. Singh deposed that sometimes in May 1986 while he was on his seat near Malkhanna gate in the morning, three persons came to him and acquainted him with their problem. He deposed that they were having some papers comprising of summons and copy of plaint in respect of a case pending in State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 the court of Sh. Prem Kumar, the then ARC. Old man and another young man introduced themselves to be the father and son whose name perhaps was some Dey. They also showed him their ration card and according to their instructions he made a compromise application and obtained their signatures on the said application and on his vakalatnama and appeared before the court of Sh. Prem Kumar along with them. He deposed that on that day, one person whose name perhaps was Baldev Raj was present in the court. He deposed that the case was adjourned and on the subsequent date, when he reached the court, Baldev Raj was also present there and he came to him and told that Mr. Dey had come but because of some urgency had gone back and gave the power of attorney in his favour and thereafter he appeared before the court of Hon'ble ARC where a compromise was recorded between the parties through Baldev Raj. He deposed that the counsel for the petitioner also appeared with the petitioner and both the parties along with their counsels signed the said compromise deed. Police did not record his statement.
17 PW11 Ajeet Singh deposed that in the year 1991, he was posted at the collector of Stamp branch as LDC in Government of NCT, Delhi. On 08.01.1991 in his presence photocopy of the stamp register of stamp vendor license no. 46, pertaining to Entry no. 5744 dated 17.05.1986 was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A which bears his signatures at point A and copy of the same is mark A. 18 PW12 Kailash Chand Mogha deposed that he has been deputed by Sh. S.K. Khoshla, SDM, Head Quarter-I, Collector of Stamp, Head Quarter, to depose in the court. The letter no. F.214 (1)COS (HQ)/07/0872910/774 dated 03.07.08 was handed over to him and he identify the signatures of Sh. S.K. Khoshla, SDM as he has been working with him as he has seen him writing and signing during the official work. The said letter is Ex. PW12/A which bears the signatures of S.K. Khoshla, SDM at point A. 19 PW-13 HC Gaje Singh deposed that on 29.05.1988 he was posted at PS Subzi Mandi and on that day, he had joined the investigation of the present case State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 with IO SI Rajbir Singh Dahiya. He deposed that IO had taken the specimen hand writing of Sh. S.K. Dey in my presence vide Ex. PW-13/A and Ex.PW13/B, both bearing his signatures at points A. He further deposed that on 02.05.1988, the specimen handwriting of Mr. R.K. Nagpal was also taken by IO in his presence vide Ex. PW13/C, D and E, all bearing his signatures at points A. This witness correctly identify the accused.
20 PW14 Sh. Gurdeep Singh deposed that he retired as Incharge of copying branch (Sessions), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 31.03.2008 and he was posted as Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Prem Kumar, the then Ld. ARC, THC, Delhi during the period 1985-1989. He deposed that one petition no. M-73/86 was filed by Sh. R.K. Nagpal against Sh. Saroj Kumar Dey and Baldev Raj in the said Court and the petitioner had filed process fee form for the purpose of getting issued summons/notices against the respondents, in the Court. He issued the summons on the PF with RC on both the addresses available on record, for date of hearing i.e. 13.05.1986. The said process fee form is Ex. PW14/A bearing his endorsement to that effect at point A. He had received the said summons dasti vide his receipt appearing at point B on Ex.PW14/A. He deposed that on 29.08.1986, on the directions of Ld. Presiding Officer, he had made enquiry from Nazarat branch in which it was revealed that the summons taken dasti by the petitioner was not got entered by the petitioner i.e. Sh. R.K. Nagpal in the relevant register of the Nazarat branch. He made the report to the Court vide his endorsement on the order sheet which is Ex. PW14/B, bearing his signature at point A. He deposed that he has seen the carbon copy of the notice/summon available in judicial file, which is in my handwriting and also bears my initials at point A. Same is now exhibited as Ex.PW14/C. 21 PW15 ACP Dhanvir Dutt deposed that on 02.04.1990 he was posted at Crie Branch and on that day, he had received case file of the present case for further investigation. He deposed that he perused the file, interrogated the accused, searched for the complainant and other witnesses. He further deposed that on 07.01.1991 he went to Sh. R.P. Singh advocate, Tis Hazari and made enquiry from him. He produced the carbon copy of summons issued by the court of Sh. Prem State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 Kumar, the then Ld. ARC, Delhi in the name of Sh. Saroj Kumar Dey issued on 03.05.1986 along with the copy of plaint dated 21.04.1986. He seized the said document vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/A bearing his signatures at point A whereas Sh. R.P. Singh had signed the documents in his presence at point B. He deposed that the said documents are Ex. PW14/C and Ex. PW15/B and on the same day, he went to the court of Sh B.R. Singh Ld. ARC Delhi and joined Ahlmad Sh. Daya Chand of the said court in investigation. He further deposed that he produced photocopy of the process form dated 13.05.1986 in petition number 99/86. The seizure memo Ex PW15/C was prepared on the seizure of the said documents which bear his signatures at point A and signatures of Sh. Daya Chand at point B, the photocopy of the documents seized are marked A1 to A2 collectively. He further deposed that on 08.01.1991 he went to collector of Stamp branch, situated at Tis Hazari Court and on enquiry Sh Ajeet Singh from the said office produced photocopy of non judicial stamp paper register of 17.05.1981 containing Sl. No. 5744 vide which a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- was sold by R.A. Ahuja. Stamp vendor holding license no. 46, Tis Hazari Courts and he seized the same vide memo Ex. PW11/A bearing his signatures at point B and signed by Sh. Ajeet Singh UDC at point A. Copy of the said stamp register is already mark A. He further deposed that he had recorded the statement of the said witnesses on respective days when they joined the investigation with him. He deposed that during investigation, he made efforts to join the complainant i.e. Sh. Saroj Kumar Dey but he was reported to have left the given address. He further deposed that he joined public witnesses in the investigation namely Sh. Naresh Dhawan and Sh. B. Banerjee and had recorded their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court. This witness duly identified the accused.
22 PW-16 Sh. A.K Garg Retd. Additional Sessions Judge deposed that on 11.05.87, he was posted as Additional Rent Controller at Tis Hazari Court Delhi and on that day, an application Ex PW16/A was presented before him by SHO PS Subzi Mandi praying that certain documents be handed over to him. On the said application, he passed order Ex. PW16/B directing that the required documents be handed over to the IO for purpose of investigation, as directed by Sh. Prem State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 Kumar, the then Ld ARC in Eviction Petition No. E- 145/86 titled as " R.K Nagpal Vs. Saroj Kumar Dey" in his judgment dt. 22.09.86.
23 This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
24 I have heard final arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and also have perused the entire judicial records, carefully.
25 It is argued on behalf of State that in view of the testimony of prosecution witnesses, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.
26 On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of accused that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as material witnesses namely S.K. Dey was dropped and has not been examined. Even the FSL report is also of no use of the prosecution as no opinion is given by PW2, N.K. Nehra on the specimen writing.
Therefore, accused is entitled to be acquitted.
27 Vide order dated 10.09.1996 accused Ravi Kiran Nagpal was charged on the basis of execution of a decree which was obtained on false application dated 13.05.1986 and 19.05.1986 supported by vakalatnama, power of attorney and written statement to get favourable order for offence u/s 468 r/w section 420 IPC, 471/209/210 IPC. To prove the charge against the accused prosecution has examined as much as 16 witnesses.
28 I have gone through the evidence and documents relied by the prosecution. In the present case, material witnesses S.K. Dey, Saroj Dey and B. Banerjee being the material witnesses could not be produced in the witness box despite sincere efforts made by predecessor of this court and vide order dated 23.11.2007 these witnesses were dropped. It is pertinent to mention that P.K. Dey, Saroj Dey were the tenants of premises in question which was got vacated pursuant to execution of decree obtained on the basis of false documents. In its judgment dated State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 22.09.1986 PW2 Sh. Prem Kumar, the then Ld. ARC has opined that Sh. R.P. Singh, advocate who has represented as Baldev Raj, fictitious authorized representative of the tenant i.e. S.K. Dey that he could not be traced. But during the trial before this court Sh. R.P. Singh, advocate appeared, who has categorically deposed that sometimes in May 1986 while he was on his seat in the morning, three persons came to him, and acquainted him with their problem. They were having some papers comprising of summons and copy of the plaint in respect of case pending in the court of Sh. Prem Kumar, the then Ld. ARC. One old man and another young man introduced themselves to be the father and son whose name perhaps was some Dey. The also showed him their ration card and according to their instructions he made a compromise application and obtained their signatures on the said application and on his vakalatnama and appeared before the court of Ld ARC. On next day, when he reached in the court one Baldev Raj also present there and he came to him and told that Mr. Dey had come but because of some urgency had gone back and gave a power of attorney in his favour and thereafter he appeared in the case where compromise was recorded between the parties through one Baldev Raj. Identity of Baldev Raj could not be established by the prosecution during trial. It is also not proved that who was the person who have appeared before the court when the matter was compromised between the parties. To prove this fact during investigation of this case, specimen signatures and compromise statement were obtained and sent to FSL for examination. Sh. T.R. Nehra, PW2 Principal Scientific Officer (documents) appeared and deposed and proved his report as Ex. PW2/A and have deposed that authorship of questioned documents marked Q1 to Q5, Q7 could not be connected with the writer of specimen signatures marked S1 to S9 and A1. Therefore, he was unable to express any opinion regarding the questioned xeros copied signatures marked Q6 and Q6A in the absence or original documents. Therefore, in view of testimony of PW, it cannot be said that the compromise deed, vakalatnama, power of attorney and written statement were signed by the present accused.
29 PW1 SI Sanjeev Parmar deposed and examined by the prosecution to prove the fact that specimen signatures of S.K. Dey were obtained by the IO in his State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 12 FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014 presence in the PS but during cross examination this witness has specifically admitted that in his presence S.K. Dey did not produce any documents showing his identity. The letter mark A was brought by S.K. Dey himself.
30 In my view the presence of S.K. Dey, Saroj Dey was material before this court as for the purpose of identification by PW R.P. Singh as he has stated that three persons appeared before him who represented themselves some Dey but due to reasons mentioned in order dated 23.11.2007, the presence of P.K. Dey, Saroj Kumar Dey could not be secured.
31 There is also one lacunae in this case. PW2 Sh. Prem Kumar, the then Ld. ARC after passing judgment dated 22.09.1996 in case no. M-73/86, R.K. Nagpal v. Saroj Kumar Dey wrote a letter dated 23.09.1986 requesting the CMM, Delhi to get investigated the case through competent police official and on the basis of letter, the predecessor of this court gave direction to SHO concerned for registration of FIR on the basis of which, FIR no. 9/88 was registered under section 420/468/471/120B IPC but no formal complaint u/s 420 R/w section 195 Cr.P.C. was moved which is a condition precedents to take cognizance of the offence u/s 209/210 IPC. Prosecution has failed to prove on record that it was only and only accused Ravi Nagpal who has forged and fabricated the documents as mentioned above with a view to take favourable order i.e. eviction order on the basis of false compromise deed. In view of the above reasons, accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt. Hence, accused is acquitted for the charge in the present case.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 28.10.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 12
FIR No. 09/88: U/s 420/468/471/120B/209/210 IPC: PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 28.10.2014
State V/s Ravi Kiran Nagpal ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 12