Delhi District Court
Saurabh Chugh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 16 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No.40/11
Saurabh Chugh
s/o Late Sh. Satish Kr Chugh
....Revisionist
Vs.
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Vimal Aggarwal
S/o Raj Kumar
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 03.06.2011
Reserved for order on : 06.03.2012
Date of Pronouncement: 16.03.2012
ORDER
The present revision petition U/s 398/399/400/401 Cr.P.C has been preferred against order dated 12.05.2011 passed by Sh Pawan Singh Rajawat, Ld. MM in case titled Saurabh Chugh Vs. Vimal Aggarwal whereby the complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts for giving rise to this revision is that revisionist had filed complaint against respondent alleging that he is the attorney of his mother Smt. Vimal Chugh who was the Saurabh Chugh Vs. State etc C.R.No.40/11 Page No. 1 of 7 original allottee of property bearing plot no.224, Pocket C3, Sec.28, RohiniIV, Delhi admeasuring 60 sq.meters under Rohini residential scheme on the basis of draw held on 11.06.2003. A demand letter was issued on 01.09.2003 vide which the revisionist was required to deposit 35% of the amount by 4.11.2003, 50% of the premium by 03.01.2004 and rest 15% on receipt of further communication. Since there was some delay and the revisionist apprehending cancellation by DDA, mother of revisionist contacted one property dealer stating that he had good dealing to influence in DDA and who allegedly induced her to part with the original allotment letter and other documents besides receiving an amount of Rs.1.00 lacs as commission for stopping the cancellation from DDA. It has been further alleged that accused developed a dishonest intention to scrounge the complainant of her plot and he filed a false writ petition by way of impersonation which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and review petition which was also dismissed. It is further stated that due to false writ petition, the complainant was permanently deprived of the said plot. The complainant came to know about the real fact about the writ only on receipt of letter dated 23.8.06 from DDA when it was informed to submit all the documents to facilitate refund of the amount paid by her. It has been alleged that the accused has forged her signatures while filing the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi when she inspected the Saurabh Chugh Vs. State etc C.R.No.40/11 Page No. 2 of 7 judicial file on 07.09.2006 and accordingly the complaint was presented. Revisionist/complainant led the presummoning evidence and thereafter Ld. MM heard the arguments on summoning of accused and passed order dated 12.05.2011whereby no ground was found for summoning the accused and the complaint was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 12.05.2011, the revisionist/complainant preferred this present revision for setting aside the said order.
3. This revision was received by this court and notice was issued to the respondent/State. Trial court record was summoned which was received. Thereafter I have heard the arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld.APP for the State/respondent.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order suffers from serious illegality and impropriety as the Ld. Trial court has gravely erred in holding that the petitioner has moved an application u/s 319 Cr.PC against Sh. Sanjay Sehgal which was though dismissed but the said person cannot be treated to be a witness in the case and Ld. Trial court has unnecessary relied on the affidavit filed by the said counsel. He has further argued that Ld. Trial court has erred in Saurabh Chugh Vs. State etc C.R.No.40/11 Page No. 3 of 7 holding that no weightage could be given to the statement of the petitioner, statement of the complainant defacto and more specifically to the statement and report given by the hand writing expert. Ld. Counsel has argued that Ld. Trial court was to see prima facie view and at the time of summoning weightage should have been given to the statement of complainant and not to the affidavit of Sanjay Sehgal. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has drawn my attention on the copy of writ petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court as well as order passed and stated that Ld. MM has failed to consider those observations. It has further been argued that complainant had defacto made a statement on oath and denied her signatures and she was the best person to admit or deny the signatures but this fact has also not been taken into consideration by the Ld. MM. Ld. Counsel has further argued that Ld.MM has not considered the various judgments and also did not apply the judicial mind while passing the order. Ld. Counsel has relied upon case law titled Whitehill Vs. DDA & Ors. 30(1986) DLT 234, Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1971 S.C 1630, Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose, AIR 1963 S.C 1430 (V50C 207) and Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi AIR 1976 S.C 1947 and stated that the impugned order passed by the Ld. MM may kindly be set aside and accused may kindly be summoned.
Saurabh Chugh Vs. State etc C.R.No.40/11 Page No. 4 of 7
5. On the other hand Ld. APP for the State/respondent has strongly refuted the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and she has argued that Ld. MM has passed the order under challenge after considering each and every fact and allegation in the complaint. The order passed by the Ld. MM does not call for any interference by this court. So, the revision may kindly be dismissed.
6. In consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists as well as Ld. APP for the State/respondent, I have also perused the Ld. Trial court file as well as order for summoning the accused/revisionist dated 12.05.2011. The revisionist/complainant had examined CW1 Saurabh Chugh and CW2 Smt. Nirmal Chugh and CW3 S.P.Singh in presummoning evidence. I have perused their statements. CW1 has stated that his mother contacted the property dealer when she apprehended regarding cancellation of plot, who stated that he will get the needful done on payment of his commission while saying that he was having a good deal of influence in DDA and he took the original letter of allotment and other papers and cash of Rs.1.00 lac. He has also stated that the accused filed a writ petition by way of impersonation and forging the signatures of his mother regarding which they came to know on receipt of letter from DDA which is Ex.CW1/B. The copy Saurabh Chugh Vs. State etc C.R.No.40/11 Page No. 5 of 7 of writ petition is Ex.CW1/C and that of review petitioner Ex.CW1/D. The certified copy of the order passed is Ex.CW1/E. He has also stated that accused adopted a clever device to scrounge their plot by filing a bogus petition in which he could not succeed yet serious harm and injury was caused to them. CW2 Nirmal Chugh has also stated regarding taking of original allotment letter and filing of bogus litigation without her consent and permission. She has alleged that her signatures were forged. She has stated that the flat was cancelled by DDA and when she made representation, the DDA has not so far favourably responded and restored the plot because of which she suffered undue and unnecessary harassment. CW3 S.P.Singh is the examiner of questioned documents and he filed report after examination of signatures Ex.CW3/A. Report of CW3 shows that signatures A1 to A4 are not of person who signed at mark Q1 to Q10. A1 to A4 were the admitted signatures of Nirmal Chugh. I have perused the order passed by the Ld.MM. Ld. MM has mostly relied on the affidavit filed by Sh Sanjay Sehgal, Adv wherein he has stated that petition filed before Hon'ble High Court was drafted at the behest of revisionist and signed by her. Allegations have been made in the complaint as well as evidence regarding forging the signatures of Nirmal Chugh by accused. Revisionist has also examined CW3 in this respect. This question cannot be decided without leading evidence and cross examination of witnesses. Considering the Saurabh Chugh Vs. State etc C.R.No.40/11 Page No. 6 of 7 complaint, evidence led, documents on record and case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, I am of the considered view that Ld. MM has committed error while passing the order dated 12.05.2011.
7. In view of my above discussions, the case titled Saurabh Chugh Vs. Vimal Aggarwal bearing CC no.225/10 is remanded back to the concerned Ld. MM with the direction to rehear the arguments and then pass fresh order on summoning of accused in view of my above discussions.
8. Parties to appear before the Ld. Trial court on 22.03.2012.
9. Trial court file be sent back with the copy of this order to the court concerned and revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the Open Court on 16.03.2012.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) NEW DELHI Saurabh Chugh Vs. State etc C.R.No.40/11 Page No. 7 of 7