Delhi District Court
State vs . Arun Kumar Paswan Etc. on 21 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Jitendra Pratap Singh, DJS
State Vs. Arun Kumar Paswan etc.
FIR No. 269/08
PS. Pandav Nagar
U/s. 417/468/471/120B IPC
JUDGMENT
1) SI No. of the case : 10527/16
2) The date of commission of offence : 05.08.2006
3) The name of the complainant : Sh. Rajeev Katyal
4) The name & parentage of accused : (1) Arun Kr. Paswan
s/o Sh. Janki Paswan
(2) Anil Kr. Mishra
s/o Sh. P.N. Mishra
5) Offence involved : 465/468/471/120B IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Accused Arun
convicted for the
offence punishable u/s
471 IPC and acquitted
for the offence
punishable u/s 465
and 468 r/w section
120B IPC
Accused Anil acquitted
FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 1 of 17
for the offences
punishable u/s 465,
468 and 471 r/w
Section 120B IPC
8) The date of such order : 21.07.2022
Date of Institution : 22.11.2008
Judgment reserved on : 12.07.2022
Judgment announced on : 21.07.2022
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. FIR No. 269/08 was registered at Pandav Nagar on the basis of the allegations made by Mr. Rajeev Katyal on the allegation that the accused persons Arun Kumar Paswan and Anil Kumar Mishra fraudulently and dishonestly had prepared a fake rent agreement by superimposing the signature of the complainant on the said document intending and knowing that it would be used as genuine for the purpose of cheating. That the accused persons in pursuance of their conspiracy fraudulently/dishonestly used the abovesaid forged and fake rent agreement as genuine.
2. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under section 417/468/471/120B IPC. The investigation was conducted and finally the chargesheet was filed in the court for the said offences. The cognizance of the same was taken and the accused persons were provided the copy of the chargesheet and annexed documents. Record reveals that on 17.02.2017 the charge for the offences punishable under section 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 120B IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 2 of 17
3. In order to prove the allegations against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses.
4. PW1 W/ASI Kamlesh has proved the copy of FIR No.269/08 Ex.PW1/A (OSR) and endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B.
5. PW2 is the complainant Mr. Rajiv Katyal. He has deposed that on 13.04.2005 he had given one shop situated at the ground floor of D217, Gali No.3, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex to the accused Arun Kumar on monthly rent of Rs.2400/. In this regard an agreement Ex.PW2/A was executed between him and the accused Arun Kumar. The accused made payment of rent for about 45 months and thereafter he stopped the payment. Whenever asked, he used to make excuses. That on 09.03.2008 his mother namely Sudarshan Katyal went to the accused Arun Kumar for demanding rent. The accused started abusing his mother and used filthy language against her. The accused Arun also pushed and manhandled his mother. His mother made a complaint against the accused Arun in PS Pandav Nagar and in this regard DD no.49B dated 09.03.2008 Ex.PW2/B was also registered.
This witness further deposed that on 10.03.2008 a notice was received by him from Sh. Sanjeev Goel, Advocate sent on behalf of the accused Arun. A fake/fabricated copy of rent agreement Mark PW2/X1 was also attached with the notice wherein a fact of making payment/deposit of sum of Rs.2,00,000/ dated 05.08.2006 as security/loan amount was falsely made in para no.4 of the agreement. He was surprised to receive the legal FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 3 of 17 notice and rent agreement in question. Thereafter he lodged a typed complaint dated 15.03.2008 Ex.PW2/C. He came to know that the accused Arun has got prepared two PAN cards and two voter ID cards.
PW2 further deposed that one Attendant of UTI Technology Service namely Subhash Chand had verified the PAN card and voter ID card. Verification letter Mark X (colly) and after verification it was revealed that the PAN card and voter ID card were false and also revealed that accused persons had borrowed a loan through these documents from numerous banks. Both the accused persons prepared the false and fabricated rent agreement. The accused Arun Kumar also used his address for procuring voter ID card no.IPS0825653. That he also made one further complaint to DCP.
6. PW3 HC Subhash has deposed that on 09.07.2008 he joined the investigation of this case. He alongwith the IO ASI Vijender reached H.No. D217, Ganesh Nagar Complex where they met a person namely Shyam Kayal who handed over the original rent agreement dated 13.04.2005 to the IO. The said copy was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW3/A. He alongwith IO searched the shop i.e. D217, Ganesh Nagar Complex in the presence of public witness Udai Kumar and the accused Arun Kumar but neither the copy of agreement dated 05.08.2006 nor the PAN card in the name of Amit Kumar nor any credit card was found there. Khanatalashi memo Ex.PW3/B in this regard was prepared.
FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 4 of 17
7. PW4 Sh. Udai Kumar stated that he did not know anything about the present case. This witness has however identified the accused Arun Kumar. The witness was cross examined by the Ld APP but nothing material could come in such crossexamination also.
8. PW5 ASI Govind Sahai has deposed that on 08.09.2008 one person namely Kailash Chand came to the PS and met SI Kanta Prasad. He handed over photocopies of PAN cards and election cards belonging to the accused persons to SI Kanta Prasad. The same were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A.
9. PW6 HC Babinder Singh has deposed that on 24.09.2008 he alongwith IO went to the Karkardooma Court where the accused Arun Paswan surrendered himself before the court. IO arrested the accused Arun Paswan after taking permission from the court. IO also recorded disclosure statement of the accused Arun Paswan and obtained his PC custody. The accused Arun Kumar were got medically examined at LBS Hospital. The accused Arun Kumar was taken to D217, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex for recovery of some documents but no documents were not recovered. The accused Arun was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively.
10. PW7 Retd ASI Vijender Singh has deposed that on 08.07.2008 he received complaint of Rajiv Katyal from the SHO and made FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 5 of 17 endorsement Ex.PW7/A. He got registered the FIR by producing the same to Duty Officer. That on 09.07.2008 he reached the complainant's house where Sh. Shyam Katyal met him and produced a copy of a rent deed. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Mr. Katyal had also informed him that the accused had got made two voter ID cards, election cards and PAN cards. Thereafter with the permission of the SHO, he checked the shop of the accused Arun Kumar but nothing was recovered. He had prepared the search memo of the same i.e. Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter he wrote letter to UTI Technology Service to verify the PAN card of the accused persons. Notice u/s 91 was written Ex.PW7/B bearing his signature at point A. In respect of his notice they had produced verification report Ex.PW7/C on 09.08.2008. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B.
11. PW8 Sh. Shyam Katyal has deposed that on 13.04.2005 IO had visited to his house and asked him for original rent agreement. He handed over the original rent agreement to him. He also said that on 13.04.2005 the rent agreement was prepared between Rajeev Katyal and Kalu Ram (owner of the flat).
12. After completion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded where in the incriminating evidence surfaced against them during the trial was put to the accused persons. The accused persons denied its correctness and pleaded innocence. The accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence.
FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 6 of 17
13. The Ld APP for the State has prayed for the conviction of the accused persons stating that the prosecution has shown that the accused persons had forged and thereafter used the disputed document Mark PW2/X1. That the crossexamination of the complainant by the accused Arun Kumar Paswan would show that he had given a suggestion to the complainant that the complainant had got document prepared and signed from him. That it shows that the accused had admitted his signatures on the said document and therefore despite there being not available the original of the said document, which in all probability has been destroyed by the accused persons, they should be convicted. That the FSL result has also shown that the signature of the complainant on the said documents were forged. That the accused Arun Kumar Paswan has also not disputed that he had sent the said document alongwith a legal notice and therefore, the accused Arun Kumar Paswan should at least be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. It is further argued that the accused Anil Kumar Mishra has not disputed anywhere that he had signed the document as a witness. That therefore this accused should also be convicted for the said offence and for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.
14. On the other hand the Ld Defence counsel for the accused Arun has prayed for acquittal stating that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. That no material has been produced before the court to show that the complainant had ever been a landlord/owner of the premises in question. That the original of the alleged forged document has never been placed on record and therefore allegations of forgery have remained unestablished FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 7 of 17 and unproved. That the complainant wishes to encroach upon a railway land in the garb of the present case and wants to illegally dispossess the complainant from the premises in question. He has further alleged that the rent agreement was got forcibly signed from him in the PS after getting present FIR lodged. The accused Anil Kumar Mishra has not advanced any arguments despite opportunities.
15. I have heard the arguments as advanced by the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld counsel for the accused Arun Kumar Paswan and have also perused the record.
16. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
17. The accused persons in the present case has been charged for commission of the offences punishable under section 465, 468 and 471 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. In order to decide the culpability of the accused pertinent statutory provisions are relevant to be referred to.
18. Section 465 IPC provides for punishment of forgery.
19. Section 468 IPC deals with the offence of forgery for the purpose FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 8 of 17 of cheating.
20. Section 471 IPC reads as follows:
Using a genuine a forged or electronic record - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
Forgery has been defined under Section 463 IPC as under:
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 cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
21. The act of making a false document is defined under Section 464 IPC which reads as under: "464. Making a false document.A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First.Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 9 of 17
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital 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 digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; 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 digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 10 of 17 Explanation 1 A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2 The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
22. It is in the light of the above mentioned statutory position and provisions that the case of the prosecution has to be dealt with.
23. In the instant case the original document which has purportedly been forged used by the accused i.e. the rent agreement dated 05.08.2006 has never been retrieved. The FSL result has not given any finding to show that the accused Arun Kumar Paswan and accused Anil Kumar Mishra has signed original of the said document. In view of this, the court is of an opinion that there is insufficient material to show that either of the accused persons has forged the said document or has forged it for the purpose of cheating. Therefore there is insufficient material to convict the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 465 and 468 IPC.
24. This brings the court to the next offence i.e. the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 11 of 17 complainant Rajeev Katyal had given a shop on the ground floor of property no.D217, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar complex on rent to the accused Arun Kumar Paswan by way of a rent agreement dated 13.04.2005 Ex.PW2/A. That the said accused after 45 months stopped making payment on rent. He abused and misbehaved with the mother of the complainant when she went to demand the rent with respect to which a representation vide DD no.49B dated 09.03.2008 Ex.PW2/B was made to PS Pandav Nagar.
25. The complainant on 10.03.2008 had received a legal notice sent on behalf of the accused Arun Kumar Paswan. It was accompanied with the photocopy of the disputed document Mark PW2/X1 dated 05.08.2006. In the said purportedly forged rent agreement accused has made a claim to the effect that he had deposited a sum of Rs.2 lacs with the complainant as security/loan amount. That the said document was signed by the accused Anil Kumar Mishra as a witness and by the accused Arun Kumar Paswan as one of the executant. The complainant has stated that his signature at Point X1 on the said document have been forged. This fact of forgery has also been established by the FSL result. The accused has not disputed the FSL result. The opinion has been given by Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Govt of NCT of Delhi and therefore, the document/FSL result is admissible as an evidence.
26. In the crossexamination dated 06.03.2019, a suggestion has been given to the complainant on behalf of the accused Arun Kumar FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 12 of 17 Paswan that he had got the document dated 05.08.2006 prepared and thereafter signed from accused Arun Kumar Paswan. The suggestion implies that the accused had admitted the existence of the document dated 05.08.2006 although he had stated that it was signed by the complainant as well. A further suggestion has been given to the complainant to the effect that he had taken this original rent agreement dated 05.08.2006 from the accused and gave its photocopy to him. It was also suggested that the present case was false and has been got registered by the complainant with a view to misappropriate the amount of Rs.2 lacs received from the accused. All these suggestions would imply that the accused is not disputing the existence and contents of the disputed document Mark PW2/X1.
27. In the crossexamination the accused Arun Kumar Paswan has not disputed the fact that he had sent the said document alongwith the aforesaid legal notice to the complainant. In view of the above categorical denial of the complainant and the supporting report of the FSL, there remains no doubt in the mind of the court that the aforesaid photocopy does not bear the signature of the complainant. The signatures of the complainant on the original documents were forged. The photocopy of such forged document was used by the accused Arun Kumar Paswan for making a claim of giving a sum of Rs.2 lacs as security/loan to the complainant. The accused Arun Kumar Paswan has used as genuine the said forged document fraudulently or dishonestly knowing or having reasons to believe it to be a forged document which is an offence u/s 471 FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 13 of 17 IPC and which is punishable in the same manner as if he has forged the same.
28. The contentions of the accused that he cannot be convicted on the basis of photocopy is unable to move this court. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled Nakul Kohli Vs State 173 (2010) DLT 197 has held that a photocopied document, which is not genuine and with the kind of technology available now, wherein exactly similar copies of original can be made, would fall within the ambit of making false documents.
29. The court is mindful the fact that the said judgment was delivered at the stage of framing of charge but the observation of the Hon'ble High court gives strength to the view of this court that it would be unjustified to allow a person go scot free for falsifying or using a false document knowing it to be false in the absence of original of the same. It would be in the nature of according premium to those criminals who firstly prepare a false document and with an objective of escaping punishment then destroy or conceal the original using only the photocopy for malicious reasons and nefarious objects. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also made the following observation in the case of Nakul Kohli (supra).
"Excluding photocopying/printing document from the ambit of a "false document" would be giving too narrow a reading to the word 'makes' as used in Section 464 Firstly and illustration (a) because the said word is not limited by the subsequent words 'signs', 'seals' or 'executes'. The word FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 14 of 17 'makes' is, therefore, not to be treated as 'signing' or 'executing' documents. It was observed that the words used in the enactment are not superfluous and should be given actual and required meaning".
30. The court further finds strength from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case tiled Sahendra Lal Treahan Vs State in Crl MC no.1883/16 decided on 26.02.2019. The Hon'ble court has observed that using photocopy of a forged document and in fact mere possession of such photocopy is an evidence punishable under IPC.
31. Therefore this court cannot accept the submission of the Ld counsel of the accused Arun Kumar Paswan that he cannot be convicted as original rent agreement Mark PW2/X1 has never been placed on record.
32. In view of the court, the prosecution has been successful in establishing that the accused Arun Kumar Paswan has fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine the rent agreement Mark PW2/X1 by sending it with a legal notice. That he maliciously and wrongfully had claimed in the said document to have deposited a sum of Rs.2 lacs on 05.08.2006 with the complainant and further that this deposit would entitle him to remain as a tenant without paying monthly rent and electricity bill.
33. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 15 of 17 tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the license of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given.
34. As is evident from the crossexamination of the complainant by the accused Arun Kumar Paswan, the said accused has not disputed the factum of tenancy. No suggestion has been put to the complainant that he was not the landlord or accused was not the tenant in the premises in question. In fact a suggestion has been given that the complainant had obtained the copies of voter ID card and PAN card of the accused for verification purposes as the accused was his tenant. Therefore it is not open to the accused to dispute the relationship of landlord and the tenant in the present case.
35. The prosecution has successfully proved that the accused Arun Kumar Paswan has committed the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
36. A perusal of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution would show that no material supporting the fact that the accused Anil Kumar Mishra had signed the said forged document Mark PW2/X1 as a witness knowing it to be forged. The FSL result does not establish handwriting/signature of Anil to be there on the forged document. No FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 16 of 17 witness has deposed to the effect that he had seen the accused Anil Kumar Mishra signing the said document. Similarly there is found no material on record to the effect that accused Anil Kumar Mishra had ever agreed with the other accused Arun Kumar Paswan to do or caused to be done the forgery/falsification of document in question or has done any act besides any such agreement in pursuance thereof. Therefore, there is no justification to convict the accused Anil Kumar Mishra either for the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC or for the offence punishable u/s 465, 468 and 471 IPC.
37. As a consequence to the above said discussion, the court finds sufficient material to convict the accused Arun Kumar Paswan for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. He, however, is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 120B IPC and section 465 and 468 IPC. The accused Anil Kumar Mishra stands acquitted of all the offences for which he has been charged in the present case. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court (JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH)
on 21st day of July, 2022 CMM/East/KKD Courts
Delhi
FIR No.269/08 State Vs Arun Paswan etc. 17 of 17