Delhi District Court
State vs Sukhbir Singh Etc.3 on 16 May, 2026
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc.
FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh & ors.
FIR No.: 353/2007
PS: Anand Vihar
CNR No. DLSH020003552009
A Case Identification 77924/2007
Number
B Name of the Mr. H K Verma
Complainant
C Name of the accused 1. Sukhbir Singh
S/o Sh. Punjab Singh
persons & their
2. V.K. Chaturvedi
parentage S/o Late S B Chaturvedi
(proceedings abated vide order
dated 13.03.2024)
3. Radhey Shyam
(proceedings abated vide order
dated 17.09.2012)
4. Ramesh Chand
S/o Sh. Dal Chand
D Date of commission of On or before 24.07.2003
the offences
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.05.18
16:18:34
page No. 1 of 17 +0530
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc.
FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
E Date of Institution of the 18.06.2009
case
F Offences charged u/s 420/120B IPC.
G Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty
H Date of Pronouncement 16.05.2026
of judgment
I Final Order Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present accused persons are produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 420/120B IPC.
2. In brief, facts of the case as per the prosecution are that the present case arises out of a complaint filed by Canara Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at Mumbai and branch office at Karkardooma, Delhi, through its duly authorized Senior Manager/Principal Officer. The complaint was instituted before the court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. It is the case of the prosecution that accused no.1, being the borrower, along with accused no.2 and other accused persons, Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN page No. 2 of 17 JAIN 2026.05.18 16:18:39 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar approached the complainant bank for grant of loan/credit facilities. Upon their request, the complainant bank sanctioned loan facility, and the accused persons executed necessary loan documents in favour of the bank. In order to secure the said loan, the accused persons created an equitable mortgage by depositing original title deeds of property bearing no. E-302, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi. The documents were deposited with the complainant bank with the intention to create security for the loan facility. It is further alleged that after availing the loan facility, the accused persons initially paid certain instalments, however, they stopped making payments w.e.f. 01.03.2005, and the loan account was subsequently classified as NPA. A substantial outstanding amount remained due and payable. The investigation further reveals that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and criminal conspiracy, dishonestly suppressed material facts from the complainant bank and induced it to sanction the loan. It also came to light that the mortgaged property had already been mortgaged with another bank, namely Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., and the same property was sold several times by the accused persons by executing sale deeds, thereby concealing material facts from the complainant bank. It is alleged that the accused persons, despite having created mortgage in favour of the complainant bank, executed sale deeds in respect of the same property and thereby attempted to defeat the security interest of the bank. The copies of such sale deeds were seized Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 3 of 17 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:18:44 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar during investigation. It is further alleged that the accused persons, in collusion with each other and in furtherance of their common intention, siphoned and misappropriated the loan amount for their personal use and for purposes other than those for which the loan was sanctioned. By their acts, they caused wrongful loss to the complainant bank and wrongful gain to themselves. The outstanding amount against the accused persons was approximately Rs. 4,49,377/- (plus interest). Despite repeated demands and requests, the accused persons failed to repay the loan amount, and consequently, the complainant bank initiated recovery proceedings against them. It is also on record that though a complaint was lodged with the police, no effective action was taken initially, whereafter the complainant approached the court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. On the basis of material collected during investigation, it was found by the investigating officer that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and conspiracy, cheated the complainant bank and committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly inducing the bank to sanction loan and thereafter misappropriating the same. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B IPC. Supplementary chargesheet was filed qua accused Ramesh Chand, Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi and Sukhbir Singh.Digitally signed by MANISH
MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 page No. 4 of 17 16:18:50 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
3. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this Court and copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons. Further, the matter was listed for arguments on the point of charge.
4. Further, Ld. Predecessor of this Court directed to frame charge for the offences u/s 420/120B IPC against accused Ramesh Chand, Sukhbir Singh and Vinay Chaturvedi.
5. Thereafter, prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined various witnesses.
6. PW1 Hare Krishna Verma, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India deposed that he filed the complaint before the court on behalf of the bank regarding fraudulent availing of overdraft facility. He proved the complaint as Ex. PW1/A, his affidavit as Ex. PW1/E, list of witnesses as Ex. PW1/D and relied upon documents as Ex. PW1/C. He further proved the power of attorney in his favour (photocopy earlier marked Mark A and later exhibited as Ex. PW1/G (OSR)). He stated that accused Radhey Shyam Sharma and Ramesh Chand had taken loan of Rs. 8.5 lakhs from the bank on 24.07.2003, but failed to repay the same, resulting in the account being declared NPA. He deposed that the loan was sanctioned against equitable mortgage of property no. E-302, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN page No. 5 of 17 JAIN 2026.05.18 16:19:09 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar and that the accused stopped payment of the installments from 01.03.2005. He further stated that the accused concealed material facts and had also mortgaged the same property with other banks and sold the property several times, thereby cheating the bank. He also proved annexures collectively as Ex.
PW1/A (colly), including documents such as legal opinion, valuation report, etc. During further examination, he identified the accused persons.
7. PW2 Retd. Inspector C.B. Singh deposed that on 12.06.2007 he was posted at PS Anand Vihar and received the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. along with copy of the FIR for investigation. He stated that he attempted to collect documents from the bank and interrogated concerned persons but could not complete investigation as the case was later transferred.
8. PW3 Retd. Insp. Sarabjeet Singh Minhas deposed that in March 2009 he was posted at DIU/East and took over investigation of the present case. He stated that he collected relevant documents from the complainant bank, which were already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/D. He deposed that he arrested accused Radhey Shyam Sharma and proved his arrest memo and personal search memo as Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively. He further deposed that he arrested accused Vinod Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.18 page No. 6 of 17 16:19:16 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar Kumar Chaturvedi and proved his arrest memo and personal search memo as Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D. He also proved disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW3/G. He stated that he recorded statements of witnesses, conducted investigation at various places and, after completion of investigation, prepared and filed the charge-sheet before the court.
9. PW4 SI Kushal Pal deposed that on 20.04.2009 he was posted at DIU Cell, East District and joined investigation of the present case along with IO Insp. Sarabjeet Singh, SI Rajender Singh and bank officials. He stated that accused Radhey Shyam Sharma was arrested in his presence by IO Insp. Sarabjeet Singh and Bank Manager Sh. R.K. Nemani and his arrest memo and personal search memo bear his signatures at point B. He further deposed that disclosure statement of accused Radhey Shyam Sharma was recorded, which is Ex. PW3/G. He further deposed that on 21.04.2009 accused was produced before the court and police custody was obtained. He further stated that during further investigation, accused Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi was arrested after obtaining anticipatory bail and his arrest memo and personal search memo are Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, supplementary charge-sheet was prepared and filed before the court.
Digitally
signed by
MANISH
MANISH JAIN
JAIN Date:
2026.05.18
16:19:22
+0530
page No. 7 of 17
(Manish Jain)
ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi
State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc.
FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar
10.PW5 R.K. Nemani, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India deposed that on 05.08.2008 he handed over certain documents (34 pages) to the IO vide letter dated 05.08.2008, which is Ex. PW5/A. He further deposed that he handed over original sale deed dated 26.06.2003 executed by Ramesh Chand in favour of Radhey Shyam Sharma vide letter dated 27.08.2008, which is Ex. PW5/B, and the said sale deed is Ex. PW5/C. He further deposed that he handed over account opening form (2 pages), which was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/D. He further deposed that he handed over certain documents vide letter dated 26.05.2008, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/E, and the said letter is Ex. PW5/F. He also deposed that he handed over dismissal report of S.B. Singh vide letter dated 24.08.2008, which is Mark PX.
11.PW6 ACP Ghanshyam deposed that on 12.01.2008 he was posted as Inspector/ATO at PS Anand Vihar and after registration of FIR, he conducted investigation. He stated that he served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. upon Central Bank of India and obtained documents through bank officials, which were seized vide memo already Ex. PW5/E. He further deposed that he again served notices upon accused persons to join investigation but they did not cooperate. He further deposed that on Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN page No. 8 of 17 JAIN 2026.05.18 16:19:26 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar 01.08.2008 documents i.e. account opening form and loan application were produced by bank official and seized vide memo already Ex. PW5/D. He further deposed that on 07.08.2008 loan file documents were produced and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B and documents are Ex. PW6/C (colly). He further deposed that on 27.08.2008 original property documents were produced and seized vide memo Ex. PW6/D (documents already Ex. PW5/C). He also proved letter dated 29.07.2008 as Ex. PW6/A. He further deposed that he issued notices to accused persons and recorded statements of witnesses' u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter investigation was transferred to DIU.
12.Accused Ramesh Chand and Sukhbir Singh have made separate statements u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and admitted documents i.e. FIR and endorsement on rukka as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.
13.After completion of prosecution evidence, same was closed and the matter was listed for recording of statement of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC.
14.In the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused persons deposed as under:
a) Accused Sukhbir Singh has submitted that the loan/OD Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN page No. 9 of 17 2026.05.18 16:19:33 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar facility was facilitated as per the norms of the bank and the valuation as well as legal scrutiny reports and other documents submitted by the other bank officials and the panel lawyer etc. He performed his duties as a bank employee during the said period as per the norms of the bank and conducted the loan proceedings as per the legal search and valuation reports submitted by the authorized persons of the bank and he has no connection with any of the other co-accused persons who obtained the bank loan.
b) Accused Ramesh Chand submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He was the servant of accused Radhey Shyam.
15.Accused persons showed their unwillingness to lead evidence and thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
16.It is pertinent to state that accused Radhey Shyam and V.K. Chaturvedi expired during the trial and proceedings against them stood abated vide order dated 17.09.2012 and 13.03.2024 respectively.
17.I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels for accused persons and Ld. APP for the State and carefully perused the entire record.
18.The accused persons have been sent for trial on the allegations Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH Date:
JAIN JAIN page No. 10 of 17 2026.05.18 16:19:40 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar that, in conspiracy with each other, they induced the complainant bank to sanction overdraft/loan facilities on the basis of false representations and thereby caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
19.At the outset, it is settled law that in a criminal trial the burden always rests upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and such burden never shifts. The prosecution is required to stand on its own legs and cannot derive strength from the weakness of defence.
20.The principal allegation against accused Sukhbir Singh is that, while functioning as a bank official, he facilitated sanction of the loan facility in conspiracy with co-accused persons and in violation of banking norms. The allegation against accused Ramesh Chand is that he, being proprietor/borrower, dishonestly availed the loan facility by concealing that the property mortgaged has already been mortgaged with other banks and also sold several times.
21.In order to prove guilt against the accused persons standing trial, it is essential to prove that the mortgaged property was already mortgaged with some other banks or sold to several persons; the said fact was concealed by the accused Ramesh Chand with dishonest intention to induce the Central Bank of India to grant OD facility and thereby induces to that effect; and Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 11 of 17 Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18 16:19:47 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar the accused Sukhbir Singh, who was the bank official at the relevant time, entered into the criminal conspiracy with Ramesh Chand for commission of the offence of cheating.
22.It is deposed by PW1 that the property mortgaged was already mortgaged by the accused Ramesh Chand with Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. and is relying upon Mark PW1/H (colly). Mark PW1/H (colly) being the photocopy, does not stand proved and in order to prove said documents, prosecution failed to examine the concerned person from Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. who would have been the best witness to prove the mortgage deed, if any, qua the same property.
23.To constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, it is essential that fraudulent or dishonest intention should exist at the very inception of the transaction. Mere failure to repay loan or subsequent default cannot by itself constitute the offence of cheating.
24.In International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy & New Materials & others vs Nirma Cerglass Technics Pvt. Ltd. & Another CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2128 OF 2011, it was held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 420 IPC unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction, i.e. the time when the offence is said to have Digitally signed by MANISH page No. 12 of 17 MANISH JAIN JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:19:52 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar been committed.
25.In the present case, prosecution evidence itself shows that the overdraft facility was processed through normal banking procedure. PW1 and documentary exhibits Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 establish that valuation report and legal scrutiny report were obtained prior to sanction of the facility. The prosecution neither examined the valuer nor the panel advocate to prove that the reports were forged, fabricated or prepared in collusion with accused persons. No evidence has come on record to show that accused persons had concealed any material fact from the bank at the inception of the transaction. Mere fact that the account subsequently became irregular or recovery proceedings were initiated before DRT cannot automatically give rise to criminal liability.
26.The prosecution has also alleged criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC. However, conspiracy cannot be presumed merely because a transaction subsequently resulted in financial loss.
27.In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1988 (3) SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal conspiracy requires proof of meeting of minds to commit an illegal act.
28.Likewise, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 INSC Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 13 of 17 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:19:59 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar 333, it was held that though conspiracy is generally proved through circumstantial evidence, circumstances relied upon must unerringly point towards guilt.
29.In the present matter, there is no evidence of any prior agreement between accused Sukhbir Singh and co-accused persons. No evidence regarding receipt of illegal gratification, pecuniary benefit or sharing of wrongful gain by accused Sukhbir Singh has been produced. The prosecution has not proved any communication, meeting, document or conduct suggestive of concerted action between accused persons to cheat the bank. Mere processing of loan documents by a bank official during official course of duty cannot by itself establish conspiracy.
30.All the witnesses produced by the prosecution deposed qua the availing of loan by the accused Ramesh Chand and no evidence has been put forth which suggests towards any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons or the commission of the offence of cheating.
31.Further, the testimony of PW6 ACP Ghanshyam materially weakens the prosecution case. During cross-examination, PW6 categorically admitted:
"During investigation no incriminating evidence were against the accused Ramesh Chand till the time I have collected the Digitally signed by page No. 14 of 17 MANISH MANISH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18 16:20:08 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar evidences/documents."
Such admission by the Investigating Officer is highly significant. The investigating agency itself could not collect any independent incriminating material connecting the accused person with fraudulent conduct except the loan documentation forming part of official banking record.
32.It is settled law that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof.
33.The explanations furnished by the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also appear plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accused Sukhbir Singh consistently stated that he merely processed the facility on the basis of valuation reports and other documents submitted by authorized persons appointed by the bank. The said explanation finds support from prosecution evidence itself.
34.The material on record shows that the complainant bank had already initiated recovery proceedings before DRT in respect of the loan transaction. The dispute essentially emanates from sanction, utilization and recovery of loan facility.
35.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006 INSC 452) cautioned against converting civil Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.18 page No. 15 of 17 16:20:14 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar disputes into criminal prosecutions merely to exert pressure.
36.In absence of clear evidence of fraudulent intention or fabrication attributable to the accused persons, continuation of criminal liability would not be justified merely because the loan account became irregular or recovery remained pending.
37.The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion is that:
•prosecution failed to establish fraudulent intention from inception;
•no material proving meeting of minds or conspiracy has been produced;
•investigation suffers from material inconsistencies and omissions;
•even the Investigating Officer admitted absence of incriminating evidence against accused persons during investigation;
•prosecution failed to prove wrongful gain or illegal benefit derived by accused persons.
38.Thus, serious doubts arise regarding the prosecution story. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused. Accordingly, this Court holds that prosecution has failed to prove offences punishable under Sections 420/120B IPC against accused Sukhbir Singh and Ramesh Chand beyond reasonable doubt and Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH JAIN page No. 16 of 17 JAIN Date:
2026.05.18 16:20:19 +0530 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi State Vs. Sukhbir Singh etc. FIR No.: 353/2007 PS: Anand Vihar accordingly, both the accused persons are acquitted for the above stated offences.Digitally signed
Announced in the Open Court MANISH by MANISH JAIN Date:
today i.e. on dated 16th May 2025 JAIN 2026.05.18 16:20:24 +0530 (MANISH JAIN) ACJM:SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI page No. 17 of 17 (Manish Jain) ACJM:Shahdara:KKD:Delhi