Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjeev Kumar on 10 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
DLSE020111362016
Cr. Case No. -: 97549/2016
FIR No. -: 323/2016
Police Station -: Sarita Vihar
Section(s) -: 420/467/468/471/34 IPC
STATE
VS.
SANJEEV KUMAR & ANR.
1. Name of Complainant :- Dr. G.K. Jadhav
S/o Sh. Krishna Rao
Jadhav
2. Name of Accused Person :- 1) Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Sh. Lt. Sh. Tej
Singh (Proceedings
qua accused Sanjeev
Kumar already
abated vide order
dated 15.11.2021)
and
2) Munesh Devi @
Kaushal
W/o Sh. Sanjeev
Kumar
3. Offence complained of or proved :- 420/467/468/471/34
IPC
4. Plea of Accused Person :- Not guilty
5. Date of Commission of offence :- December 2013 to
April 2016
Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Aridaman singh
FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 38singh cheema
cheema Date:
2025.09.10
16:23:51
+0530
6. Date of Filing of case :- 01.10.2016
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 24.03.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 10.09.2025
9. Final Order :- Accused Munish
Devi is Acquitted u/s
420/467/468/471/34
IPC
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on December 2013 to April 2016 at unknown time, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention induced the complainant, namely Dr. G.K. Jadhav and Smt. Deepa Singh to deliver Rs.9lacs and rs.2,12,600/- respectively and also made forged entried in post office RD passbook purporting to be a valuable security with intend to cheat the complainant. Further, both the accused made forged entries in post offiece RD passbook intending that it shall be used to cheat the complainant and also fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine the false entries in RD passboook and accused persons furnished false education certificate before post office authority to get the agency issued in the name of Munesh Devi, which they knew at the time used it to be a forged documents and thereby committed the offences punishable under section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Sarita Vihar. Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.09.10 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 38 16:24:00 +0530
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused persons and chargesheet was presented in the court on 01.10.2016. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Accused persons were summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet were supplied to accused persons in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the Accused persons, charge under section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC was served upon against the Accused persons on 27.10.2017. The Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
5. PW-1/ SI Nagender Nagar, he deposed that on 06.07.2016, he was posted as SI at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day, reader of SHO PS Sarita Vihar handed over one complaint to him and the same was forwarded by him to Senior Officials for approval of registration of FIR. His application in this regard is Ex.PW1/A. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Munesh Devi he stated that application for approval was required in the complex cases Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 38 by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:05 +0530 of cheating and forgery as per the oral guidelines of then Senior Police Officials. All such complaints of cheating and forgery are sent immediately for approval.
He was not cross-examined on behalf of accused Sanjeev Kumar despite opportunity given.
6. PW-2/ Dr. Ganesh K. Jadhav, he deposed that in November 2013, one Mr. Sanjeev Kumar met him and claimed that he was running Postal Agency on behalf of his wife Smt.Munesh Devi. She opened three RD Accounts of Rs.10,000/- each per month in the name of his son namely Aniket Ganesh Jadhav from H Pocket Post Office, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi at the instance of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and her wife Smt. Munesh Devi (both accused persons present in the Court today and correctly identified by the witness). Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (accused) had been collected Rs.30,000/- per month from November 2013 till April 2016. In December 2015, above said accused was unable to produce the postal books pertaining to above said account stating that he had misplaced them and he would get the duplicate books soon and continued to collect money towards RD installment until April 2016. In May 2016, he came to know that no RD installment were deposited by the accused in the above said Post Office Account after December 2016, though the Postal book show on entry alongwith official postal seal till November 2015. Thereafter, he gave a written complaint to Police on 05.07.2016, Same is Ex. PW2/A bearing his signatures at point A on the basis of which the present FIR was registered against the accused persons. Prior to this date, on Aridaman 26.05.2016, he also made a written complaint against accused. Same singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 38 16:24:09 +0530 is Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point A. Accused cheated him for a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (inclusive of interest amount). Further on 06.07.2016, Police accompanied him to H Pocket, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi from where accused Sanjeev Kumar was apprehended by the police at about 07:00 PM. He was inquired by the Police at PS Sarita Vihar and was arrested at about 08:00 PM vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C and also conducted his personal search memo Ex.PW2/D both bearing his signatures at point A respectively. On 17.07.2016, IO came at his residence and inquired him. He handed over the above said 3 RD accounts Passbook in the name of his son Aniket Jadhav which were earlier deposited with the post office. IO recorded his statement in this regard. He stated that he can identify the said three RD accounts passbooks, if shown to him. At that stage, witness was shown three RD accounts passbooks. Witness correctly identified the same. He also obtained computer generated Details of above said RD accounts from Post office wherein I found that accused deposited only one installment in each RD Account (Rs.10,000/- in each account). He also provided those computer generated Balance Sheets of above said three RD accounts and photocopies of said RD account passbooks to the IO. Same are attached with the Judicial file and is Ex.PW2/E (colly) bearing his signatures at Point A at each page (16 pages).
At that stage, Account Opening Forms with respect to account no. 283422, 283423 and 283424 are attached with the Judicial file. The same were shown to the witness wherein witness correctly identified the photographs of his wife and her signatures on each Aridaman singh Account Opening Form. cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 38 Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:13 +0530 He was cross examined and in his cross examination he stated that he had made a single written complaint to the police. He do not remember the date on which he presented the same before police. He admitted that he had made two written complaints against the accused persons. He admitted that he had given first written complaint to the Police in May 2016. He came to know in the month of May 2016 about the abovesaid cheating with him at the hands of accused persons. He admitted that Accused had got opened RD account in the name of his son in November 2013. He admitted that in his complaint Ex-PW2/B, he had mentioned that accused opened RD account in the name of his son in December 2013. He voluntarily stated that it was typographical mistake. In May 2016, he came to know regarding false entries in his passbook when he visited the post office. He admitted that he used to give installments of Rs.30,000/- to Sanjeev Kumar who was represented his wife, namely, Munish Devi, he met accused Munish Devi. He used to hand over said amount of installments to accused Sanjeev Kumar in first half of every month. Every time, he also used to hand over his passbooks to get those updated from post office. He never inquired from post office prior to May 2016.
In March 2016, accused informed him that one Sardarji had snatched his RD passbooks from him as accused was owning some money to him. Thereafter, he requested the said Sardarji resident of F-262, Sarita Vihar to hand over the said RD Passbooks. The said passbook handed over to him by said Sardarji. He do not remember the exact date when Sardarji handed over the said RD passbook to him. (Vol. Probably it was around May/June 2016). It is wrong to Aridaman suggest that he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 38 Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:17 +0530 present case in collusion with said Sardarji. His son was minor when he opened said RD accounts in his name. He had mentioned the said investments Rs. 30,000/- in hisITR as expenditure. He did not hand over his relevant ITR to the police as they did not ask him to hand over the same. It is wrong to suggest that the said investment was not mentioned in his ITR and for the same reason, he did not hand over the same to the police. It is wrong to suggest that he never handed over the said amount of Rs.9 Lac as alleged. He does not remember how many times he had visited the police station and post office regarding the same. He never visited post office alongwith the police. He never visited the house of accused alongwith the police. He voluntarily stated that his secretary namely Sukhvir Singh accompanied the police to the house of accused Sanjeev Kumar at Saharanpur, U.P. No stamp was recovered from the possession of accused in his presence. He denied the suggestion that his secretary never accompanied the police at the Saharanpur. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to support the prosecution story.
7. PW-3/ Ms. Deepa Shahi, she deposed that she used to work as a private teacher. She got opened four separate RD accounts at Sarita Vihar post office through Agent Sanjeev Kumar, whom she know from last 13 years. He opened RD Account No. 283171@ Rs.1000 monthly installment, RD account No.282951 @ Rs.3000 monthly, RD Account No.282781 @ Rs.2000 monthly and RD Account NO. 283170 @ Rs.700. She used to deposit his monthly installment through Agent Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. Her father-in-law namely Anand Singh had also opened RD Account NO.283628 @ Rs.2000 per month Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 38 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:22 +0530 to Sanjeev Kumar. Her sister in law Kusumlata Nayal and her daughter Arti Nayal had also opened RD accounts through accused Sanjeev Kumar @ Rs.500 and Rs.1000 per month installments respectively. Accused Sanjeev Kumar used to update the deposit entries but after some installments, he did not update RD Passbook but collected installments on time till October 2015. In April 2015, when she inquired from him for not updating entries in abovesaid RD passbooks, he told that now all the data is online and there is no need to update deposit of installments in RD passbook. Thereafter, she inquired from abovesaid post office regarding deposit of monthly installments in abovesaid RD accounts. She came to know from said post office that no monthly installments had been deposited by accused Sanjeev Kumar since December 2013 to October 2015 in the abovesaid RD accounts. She also came to know that the entries in his aboveaid RD passbooks and the post office seal was fake and false from the period of December 2013 to March 2015. Accused Sanjeev Kumar had cheated her and her father in law for a total sum of Rs.2,12,600/-. (fake entries for a total sum of Rs.1,78,100 was made by the accused in abovesaid RD Passbook). She also made written complaint to SHO PS Sarita Vihar on 16.07.2016 and the same is Ex- PW3/A bearing her signature at point A. She also annexed details of cheated amount for each RD account with said complaint as Ex- PW3/B bearing her signature at point A. She also annexed details of abovesaid RD accounts with his complaint and same are Ex-PW1/A (colly containing 11 pages). Accused was present in the court that day, correctly identified by the witness. Further on 18.07.2016, he handed over RD passbook NO.283170, 282781, 282951 & 283171 all in the Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 38 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:27 +0530 name of Deepa Shahi i.e herself to the police. She also handed over RD account No.283628 in the name of Anand Singh (his father-in- law), 282635 in the name of Kusumlata Nayal and 282953 in the name of Arti Nayal. All the abovesaid RD passbooks are seized by the police vide memo Ex-PW3/B bearing her signature at point A. By making false entries with seal of abovesaid post office accused induced him to believe that he had deposited the abovesaid monthly installments (which accused collected from him) in abovesaid RD accounts.
In her cross examination, she stated that she had been resided at the abovementioned address from past 14 years. She is graduate (B.Lib). She was teaching in Glory Public School at Sarita Vihar. She was earning Rs.19,000/- in the year 2015-2016. In the year 2004, she was earning Rs.6-7,000/- per month. Accused Sanjeev Kumar was in touched with her since 2004. She does not know his wife Le accused Munesh Devi.) She had opened her first RD account through accused Sanjeev Kumar in the year 2004. Post office Sarita Vihar is at a distance of 500 yrd. From his abovementioned address. He do not remember whether she had deposited money directly in the post office or not. Accused Sanjeev Kumar always collected monthly installments for the past 13 years. (vol. In the year 2013, accused Sanjeev Kumar suffered paralysis attack. Thereafter, her father in law used to hand over monthly installment to him at his residence). After her paralysis attack accused Sanjeev did not visit at her residence to collect the monthly installment. He visited our house prior to his arrest in the month of November-December 2015. She came to know about Aridaman the misappropriation of his monthly installments by accused Sanjeev singh cheema Digitally signed FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 38 by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:30 +0530 Kumar in October 2015. She did not make any complaint against the accused from October 2015 till July 2016 in any police office or post office. (Vol. Because accused promised them to return our some of monthly installments with interest but later on he refused to pay the same. She denied the suggestion that accused did not collect any monthly installment from himself from October 2013 to October 2015. She denied the suggestion that all the installments which accused Sanjeev Kumar collected from him were duly deposited by him in his abovesaid RD account. She denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to support the prosecution story. She did not give any complaint against accused Sanjeev Kumar in post office Sarita Vihar. She revealed before the police that he did not give any complaint against the accused as he promised him to return her money which he collected from himself as monthly installments and did not deposit in the abovesaid RD Accounts. She admitted that this fact is not mentioned in his complaint Ex-PW3/A. She can not say why IO did not mention this fact in his statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC. He do not know any post official person. Neither his family members know any of the post office staff members. She denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO. She denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Kumar did not cheat her and her family members as alleged.
8. PW-4/ Krishna Kumar Talan, he deposed that In the September 2015, he was postmaster at Sarita Vihar post office. On 09.07.2016, IO/SI Mukesh Kumar alongwith accused Sanjeev Kumar and some other police officials came to post office. Accused Sanjeev Kumar voluntarily identified post office date stamp which was placed on the Aridaman singh FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 38 cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:34 +0530 deposit/ withdrawal counter. He also informed that this is the same stamp which he used on passbooks without depositing any money in RD accounts. Thereafter, IO served notice U/s 91 CrPC and seized abovesaid date stamp having serial no.1 vide seizure memo Ex- PW4/A bearing his signature at point A. Further, in August 2016, IO inquired him and recorded his supplementary statement. He informed to the IO that as per record, accused Sanjeev Kumar and his wife Munish Devi working as SAS Agent and MPKBY Agent with the post office. As per record, abovesaid accused persons has opened about 400 RD/TD/MIS/NSC/KVP Account in Sarita Vihar Post Office. As per post office record, 177, RD accounts were opened by accused Munesh Devi as RD account can be opened by any female MPKBY agent only. He had also given details of RD accounts in the name of Deepa Shahi, Anand Singh, Kusum Lata, Arti Nayal and Ankit Ganesh Jadhav to the IO. He also told the IO that various RD accounts passbooks in the name of abovesaid person at the post office Sarita Vihar were having date stamp till 2014-2015 but accused persons did not deposit any monthly installments in the RD Accounts of abovesaid persons as per post office record. Prior to him. Mr. Satish Kumar Chhawal was the post master at abovesaid post office. Usually, accused Sanjeev Kumar used to visit post office and also deal with the RD Account which were opened by agent accused Munish Devi. In the month 2016, he received a complaint against accused Sanjeev Kumar from RD account holder Doctor G.K. Jadhav regarding non deposition of installment by the accused persons in RD account which he opened in the name of his son. He verified the RD passbook Aridaman presented by Dr. G.K.Jadhav with post office record and found that singh cheema Digitally signed FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 38 by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:38 +0530 only one installment has been deposited by accused Sanjeev Kumar in all the three RD accounts of Dr. G. K Jadhav in the name of his son but he observed that the abovesaid RD passbook were having fake entries of deposition with post office date stamp impression. Thereafter, he reported the matter to ASPO, New Delhi-South-II, Sub Division Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi for inquiry /action against accused persons. He verified RD accounts of G.K. Jadhav and informed him regarding actual balances vide already Ex-PW2/E (colly running into 4 pages) bearing hissignature at point B. Both accused persons are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). He can identify the abovesaid date stamp which was seized by the IO after preparing pullanda and sealing the same with the seal of 'MM'. He also provide relevant documents including account opening forms, date stamp impression and statements of said account to the IO and the documents are Ex-PW4/C (colly running into 70 pages) bearing his signature at point A. In his cross examination he stated that it is correct that the entire documents, stamps and all relevant papers and goods are in his supervision in his post office. All the documents relevant papers and goods and stamps were kept in post office as per rules. At the time of closure of post office, all the documents and stamps are placed in safe custody. It is correct that all documents and stamps used to release to the concerned employee each and every working day. It is correct that they used to sincerely deposit the entire documents/stamps in the safe custody. During his tenure, Sarita Vihar post office had seven-eight agents. He can recognize all agents including accused persons as agents used to visit post office in routine manner. When he Digitally signed by FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 38 Aridaman Aridaman singh cheema singh cheema Date:
2025.09.10 16:24:43 +0530 joined (September 2015) the said post office, the entires of RD Accounts were updated online/CBS and RD passbook were updated by printer. Any agent including any public persons has access to the post office but they can not use any stamp belonging to the post office.
Police served notice U/s 91 CrPC to him in the month of July 2016 I.e. when police visited the said post office alongwith the accused. It is wrong to suggest that no date stamp was seized in his presence. It is wrong to suggest that he is deposing falsely to avoid his liability at that time. He informed ASPO against accused persons vide his letter Ex-PW-4/B bearing his signature at point B. Police visited the said post office in his presence for 2-3 times. Police visited during the working hours between 10.00AM-12.00PM. Police alongwith accused remained there 20-25 minutes only. After one week police again visited the said post office to serve the summons. It is wrong to suggest that police did not visit the post office with accused or that no stamp was recovered on the instance of the accused person. He had visited the PS Sarita Vihar on the basis of notices served u/s 91 CrPC Ex-PW4/C bearing his signature at point A. None of his statement was not recorded by the police at PS. At that stage, earlier statement of witness recorded u/s 161 CrPC dated 06.08.2016 is shown to the witness wherein it was recorded that his statement was recorded at PS on 06.07.2016. It is wrong to suggest that he am deposing falsely at the instance of the IO or to save himself. He denied the suggestion that no stamp was seized by the IO from post office at the instance of the accused as stated by Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed by FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 38 Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:47 +0530 him in his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that said the abovesaid stamp was handed over by him to the IO at PS.
9. PW-5/ Sh. Vijay Kumar, he deposed that he was working as Assistant Clerk at above-mentioned college. Today, he came to depose on behalf of Dr. Kumari Renu Sharma, Principal, Rukmani Modi Mahila Inter College, Modi Nagar, Gaziabad, UP. Today, he had brought summoned record regarding issuance of High School Certificate serial no. 0902577 in the name of Munesh Devi D/o Ilam Singh from Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP. As per our Inter College record abovesaid candidate was never enrolled with our Inter College and no such mark sheet was ever issued to her.
Today he had brought authority letter along-with above- said report regarding above-said mark sheet of Munesh Devi. The original authority letter and above-said report is exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A (Colly total 4 pages) including Authority Letter, verification report of High School Certificate in the name of Munesh Devi bearing serial no. 0902577, notice U/sec 91 Cr.P.C. from SHO PS Sarita Vihar to Principal, Rukmani Modi Mahila Inter College, Modi Nagar, Gaziabad, UP and photocopy of High School Certificate in the name of Munesh Devi bearing serial no. 0902577. Above said authority letter bears the signatures of Dr. Kumari Renu Sharma, Principal, Rukmani Modi Mahila Inter College, Modi Nagar, Gaziabad, UP at point A. He can identify signatures of Dr. Kumari Renu Sharma, Principal as he was working under her and he have seen her signing during her official duties.
Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 38 16:24:51 +0530 He was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.
10. PW-6/ Sh. Sanjay Verma (assistant accounts officer from directorate of small svaings and lotaries), he deposed that On 19.05.2011, letter was written to Post Master by Senior Account Officer regarding renewal of MPBKY Agency Code No. SS/MBA1341 which was issued in the name of Munesh Devi which is PW6/A bearing the seal of Senior Account Officer at point A and certificate Authority letter which is Ex.PW6/B. On 20.07.2016, he wrote a letter to SHO, PS Sarita Vihar for providing detail informations documents pertaining to Smt. Munesh Devi SS/MBA1341 with the previous approval of the competent authority which is Ex.PW6/C bearing his signatures and seal at point A and certified documents related to Smt. Munesh Devi SS/MBA1341 are Ex.PW6/D (colly) consisting 19 pages bearing the seal of Directorate of Small Saving, Govt. of NCT of Delhi at point A. On 20.07.2016, he wrote a letter to SHO, PS Sarita Vihar for providing detail informations documents pertaining to Sanjeev Kumar SS/1513 with the previous approval of the competent authority which is Ex.PW6/E bearing his signatures and seal at point A and certified documents related to Sanjeev SS/1513 are Ex.PW6/F (colly) consisting in 20 pages bearing the seal of Directorate of Small Saving, Govt. of NCT of Delhi at point A. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that to protect the officer of the Post office you have given fake document against the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that you have given such Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 38 cheema Date:
2025.09.10 16:24:55 +0530 statement on the instance of police. He denied the suggestion that he had not signed the documents. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
11. PW-7/ Smt. Kusum Lata Nayal, she deposed that 05.04.2011, she had opened RD Account no. 252635 at Post Office, Sarita Vihar through Sanjeev Kumar (Postal Agent). She used to deposit monthly installment of Rs.500/- in the aforesaid RD Account through said Sanjeev Kumar (present in the Court and correctly identified by the witness). On 30.05.2016, he had opened another RD Account no.
282953 in the name of his daughter namely Aarti Nayal through Sanjeev Kumar at Sarita Vihar Post Office. She used to deposit Rs.1,000/- per month in the said RD Account of his daughter through the accused Sanjeev Kumar. She had deposited total 55 @ Rs.500/- per month installments in his RD Account and 42 installments @ Rs.1,000/- per months in the RD account of his daughter Aarti. Every month, accused Sanjeev Kumar used to collect monthly installment and passbooks of aforesaid RD Accounts from him and after depositing the said amount, he used to return the passbooks to him with entries to that effect in the said passbooks. In the end of year 2014, accused did not return his aforesaid passbooks. Thereafter, she informed that he had misplaced our passbooks and soon he would obtain duplicate passbooks. Thereafter, every months, he used to collect monthly installment from him. In October-November 2015, she went to Sarita Vihar Post office as the accused behaviour was suspicious as he was making excuses regarding his passbooks. When she inquired Sarita Vihar Post office, he came to know that no Aridaman singh installment has been deposited in the aforesaid RD Account from cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:24:59 +0530 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 38 December 2013. However, accused had collected monthly installments from him till October 2015. Accused had made false entries in the aforesaid passbooks till the month of August 2014. Thereafter, accused did not return his passbooks. Accused has embezzled his total 23 installment for each account and dishonestly induced him to deliver monthly installments from December 2013 till October 2015 by making false entries in his passbooks. IO met him and recorded her statement. At that stage, aforesaid passbooks attached with the Judicial file are shown to the witness, witness correctly identified the same. Passbooks are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
In her cross examination she stated that she is 12th pass. She was a housewife. She had filed complaint against the accused Sanjeev aforesaid for alleged cheating. She denied the suggestion that she had not filed any complaint against the accused. She denied the suggestion that she had not delivered monthly installments to the accused as stated in her examination in chief. She denied the suggestion that she had made false entries and put seals and stamps in the aforesaid passbooks and later on handing over the same to Police for false implication of the accused in the present case. She denied the suggestion that she had not filed any complaint against the accused in the Post office Sarita Vihar. She admitted that none of the post office officials helped her. She did not inquire from the Post Office officials that how accused succeeded in obtaining Post office seal and stamps on the false entries made in the aforesaid passbooks. Police called in the PS and inquired her. Police recorded her statement. She had visited two times at PS Sarita Vihar. Police did not visit her house in her presence. She admitted that today she had refreshed her memory Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 38 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date:
2025.09.10 16:25:02 +0530 prior to recording of hertestimony. She was asked a question that he had stated that Police constable had refreshed his memory from Police file and had asked him to depose in a particular manner. If she had deposed in that manner as told by the Constable or had she stated the true facts in your deposition as they had occurred. To which witness answered that she had deposed complete truth in the manner in which the incident occurred without being influenced by the Constable. She admitted that she had been told the manner that day by a police men in which she had to depose. Police/IO had read over her statement U/s 161 CrPC after recording it. She denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated as she had in a bad financial condition.
12. PW-8/ SI Mukesh Kumar, he deposed that that on 05.07.2016, he was posted at PS Sarita Vihar as SI. On that day, complainant Dr. G. K. Jhaday, filed a complant and same was assigned to SI Nagender Near for necessary approval for senior officers. After necessary approval, same was marked to himfor further investigation. He prepared the rukka on 06.07.2016, same is Ex. PW-5/A. Threafter, he got the FIR registered. After registrtion of FIR, he alongwith Ct.
Harbir and the complainant went in the area of Sarita Vihar in search of accused Sanjeev Kumar. Accused Sanjeev Kumar was found present near H Block Market, Sarita Vihar. He was aprehended from there and taken to PS Sarita Vihar. He interrogated the accused and after unterrogation, he arrested him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-2/C and conduct his personal search memo already Ex. PW-2/D Digitally both bearing his signatures at point B. On next day, accused Sanjeev Aridaman signed by Aridaman singh singh cheema Kumar was produced before concerned court and he obtained his two cheema Date:
2025.09.10 16:25:06 +0530 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 38 days PC remand. During PC remand of accused Sanjeev Kumar, they went to his native place in Saharanpur, UP on 08.07.2016. Accused Sanjeev Kumar got recovered total four stamps which were seized by his vide seizure memo Ex. PW-9/B. He also seized other documents which were got recovered at the instance of accused Sanjeev Kumar vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/C. Wife of accused namely Munesh Devi was also found present at his native place and was identified by accused Sanjeev Kumar. Thereafter, he served notice U/sec 41 A Cr. P. C upon accused Munesh Devi and interrogted her Accused Munesh Devi had shown her ignorance about the incident and also claimed her to be illitrate. Thereafter, she was discharged. On 09.07.2016, accused Sanjeev Kumar was taken to post office, Sarita Vihar. Accused Sanjeev Kumar identified the date stamps of post office Sarita Vihar which was used by him without the permission of post office and to make false entries in thessbook of the complainant and other victims. The said date stamps was seized from pret office Sarita Vibar in presence of then Post Master Sarita Vihar vide seizure memo already Ex PW-4/A. After completion of Police Remand of accused Sanjeev Kumar, he was produced before concerned court and his specimen signatures and handwriting were taken in accordance with Section 311 A Cr. P. C. Thereafter, accused Sanjeev Kumar was set to JC.
During investigation, he served separate notice U/sec 91 Cr. P. Con Post Office Sarita Vihar and Directorate of Small Savings and Lotteries situated Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi to provide details of statement of the accounts of all the victim and the details of agency of accused Sanjeev Kumar and Munesh Devi. Both the notices are Aridaman already Ex. PW-4/C and Ex. PW-4/D both bearing his signatures at singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 38 Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:10 +0530 point A respectively. On 17.07.2016, he visited the house of complainant Dr. G. K. Jadha and he produced three poss books in the name of his son Aniket Ganesh Jadhav which were seized by himvide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/D. The seized pass books are available in jolical file and same are now marked as Mark 1, 2 and 3. On 18.07.2016, the witness Deepa Shahi came to PS Sarita Vihar and presented her complaint already Ex. PW-3/A regarding the cheating done by accused Sanjeev Kumar and Munesh Devi with her and her family members. She also produced her pass book and the pass books of other family members with respect to which the accused persons had committed cheating. She produced total 07 passbooks which were seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-3/D. The said passbooks are now exhibited as Ex, PW-8/E to Ex. PW-3/K. During investigation, he received the reply of Directorate Small Savin which is already Ex. PW-6/ C and Ex. PW-6/E and also received attested copies of all the documents provided by accused Sanjeev Kumar and Munesh Devi at the time of oplying for obtaining SAS/MPBKY Agencies from Directorate of Small Saving and Lot ries. He got verified the copy of High School Certificate from Acting Principal Rukma Modi Mahila Inter College, Modi Nagar, Gaziabad, UP. Upon verification, it was found that the copy of High School Certificate deposited by accused Munesh Devi before Direcrate of Small Saving and Lotteries at the time of obtaining agency was false and fabricated the copy of said High School Certificate is available in judicial file and is marked Mark 4. The verification report with respect to the document mark 4 is also available in judicial file which isAridaman singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 38 singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:15 +0530 already Ex. PW-5/A. Thereafter, he added Section 467/468/471 IPC against accused persons.
During investigation, he obtained the certified copies of account openin form belongings to victims alongwith statement of accounts from Post Office Sarita Viler, pass book of which were seized by me during investigation. During investigation. He had obtained the original statement of said accounts alongwith application froms for opening the RD account by the victims from Senior Superintendent of Post Office, South Division, New Delhi which are already Ex. PW-4/C (Colly).
During investigation, he served notice U/sec 91 Cr. P. C upon Bank Mager of Corporation Bank, Sarita Vihar and SBI at Nehru Place for providing original.cocunt opening form of accused Munesh Devi and bank account statements of the bank accounts of accused Sanjeev Kumar and Munesh Devi. The aforesaid notice U/sec 91 Cr. P.C Ex. PW-8/E (Colly). Concerned bank Manager provided the deatails of bank accounts of accused Sanjeev Kumar from Corporation Bank, Sarita Vihar and SBI at Nehru e and and Munesh Devi from Corporation Bank, Sarita Vihar. The said details are anne ved on judicial file.
During investigation, he sent all the seized passbooks alongwith the riginal account opening forms of all the victims and specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Sanjeev Kumar alongwith admitted signatures and handwriting of accused injeev Kumar including the bank account opening form of accused Munesh Devi Aridaman (Corporation Bank) to FSL for comparision. singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 21 of 38 Date:
2025.09.10 16:25:18 +0530During investigation, it was found that accused Munesh Devi was the ent in all the RD accounts. Passbook of which were seized by him during investigation he had recorded statements of all the relevant witnesses U/sec 161 Cr. P. C. prepared char sheet and submitted that same before concerned court. After the completion of investigation, he had obtained FSL. report. In the FSL report, it was opined that the impression of dates stamps on the seized passbooks did not match the dates stamps sent to FSL. It was further opined that accused Sanjeev Kumar used to sign in the name of accused Munesh Kumar and made entires of alleged amon in the seized passbooks. It was further opined that the admitted signatures of accused Munesh Devi did not match the signatures in the name of Munesh Devi as available in the RD account opening forms. FSL resport alongwith the original documents were sulmitted before the court by filing supplementary charge sheet. Accused Munesh Devi was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
He admitted that no case property was recovered at the instance of accused Munish Devi. He admitted that in the course of investigation, it was found that while the agency was in the name of accused Munish Devi, she had not contacted any person of the public directly or even met any of the victims. He denied the suggestion that the documents produced to get the agency in the name of Munish Devi were forged by co-accused Sanjeev Kumar (now deceased) without the knowledge and consent of accused Munish Devi. He denied the suggestion that accused Munish Devi is a innocent victim in the present case being an illiterate lady. He could not say whether any amount was deposited/found in the Corporation Bank Account of Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 22 of 38 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:22 +0530 Accused Munish Devi. At this stage, the witness has perused the judicial file with court consent and has stated that the commission received from the post office was deposited in the account of Munish Devi as is reflected in the bank account statement from Point X to X1, in Ex. PWB/X1. He denied the suggestion that the said account was not opened by accused Munish Devi and was not operated by or accessed by Accused Munish Devi. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted a fair investigation in the present case and that he was deposing falsely.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
13. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the Accused Munesh Devi to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against her, the statement of Accused Munesh Devi was recorded separately without oath on 08.01.2024 under Section 313 CrPC in which she stated that she is innocent, and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has further stated that all transactions were done by her husband. He further stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
14. During the course of trial, accused Munesh Devi had admitted FIR no. 323/2016 PS Sarita Vihar (Ex.A1), certificate u/s 65-B of IEA (Ex.A2), endorsement on rukka (Ex.A3), FSL report dt. 19.06.2017 Aridaman (Ex.A4). Accordingly, corresponding witnesses were dropped from the singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 23 of 38 16:25:26 +0530 list of witnesses, pursuant to the statement of the Accused recorded u/s 294 CrPC.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
15. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and the accused and perused the records carefully. Ld. APP for the State has stated that even if the main accused had expired but the charge u/s 34 IPC has also been made. He has further stated that all the documents are in the name of accused Munesh Devi. He has further stated that the signatory to the documents is also accused Munesh Devi.
16. Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that the main accused in the matter is Sanjeev Kumar (deceased) and the proceedings qua accused Sanjeev Kumar are already abated. He has further stated that none for the witnesses had met accused Munesh Devi. The witnesses only had met accused Sanjeev Kumar (deceased). He has further stated that there was no inducement by accused Munesh Devi to the witnesses. He has further stated that accused Munesh Devi is an illeterate person and she has nothing to do with the present case. He has further stated that the fraud has been committed by Sanjeev Kumar (deceased) and there is no role of accused Munesh Devi as even the perusal of FSL report also states that as per the testimony of PW-8 even the signatures of accused Munesh Devi available in the RD account opening forms does not match as per the FSL reports and accused Munesh Devi has nothing to do with the present case. He has further stated that accused Munesh Devi is liable to acquitted. Aridaman singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 24 of 38 Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:29 +0530 THE LAW PERTAINING TO OFFENCE OF FORGERY
17. In the case of Radha Tisharassiar Amma Vs. State of Kerala 2007 13 SCC 410, para 16 and 17, it has been held that :-
"16. It is by now well-established principle of law that for the offence under Section 409, 467 and 471, the existence of mens rea (guilty mind) must be proved. It is on record that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were working as S.T.Os., Devikulam. From the prosecution evidence, it appears that the conspiracy was hatched at Chithirapuram, Primary Health Centre. So far with regard to the offence under Section 467, I.P.C. is concerned, there is no evidence to show that the appellants before us, forged a document which purported to be a valuable security. There is also no evidence that the appellants had knowledge of fact that the allotment letter was a forged letter. Again for an offence under Section 409 it must be proved that the person entrusted with the property, or any dominion over property in his capacity as a public servant committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such property as defined in Section 405, I.P.C. The evidence must show that he dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use that property or dishonestly used or dispossessed that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged. In the present case, there is no evidence that A-4 to A-7 dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use the amount of T.A. On record it is established that A-4 to A-7 are not the beneficiaries of the misappropriated amount.
17. In the absence of any evidence to show that A-4 to A-7 were acting in conspiracy with A-1, A-2, A-8, A-9 and A-10 and that A-4 to A-7 have fraudulently and dishonestly prepared forged bill on Aridaman singh the basis of forged allotment letter, the offences cheema under Sections 467, 471, 477-A or Section 409 are Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:33 +0530 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 25 of 38 not proved against the appellants. Consequently, the offence under the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not made out. The trial court was, therefore, not justified to convict A-4 to A-7 under the aforesaid sections of law.
THE OFFENCE
18. The law pertaining to the aforesaid offences is discussed herein below :-
Section 420 IPC states that:- 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
19. The offence u/sec. 467 IPC is an aggravated form of the preceding section. The forged document must be one of those mentioned in the section. Sec. 468 IPC punishes forgery committed for the purpose of cheating. To bring a document within the definition of a forged document, it is required firstly to be shown that the false document was covered u/sec. 464 IPC and even mere proving of Aridaman making a false document without establishing the intention of the singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 26 of 38 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:37 +0530 maker is not sufficient to constitute an offence and unless the forgery of a document is proved, it cannot be said that the said forged document is used as genuine one. Therefore, to constitute an offence u/sec. 471 IPC, first an offence u/sec. 468 IPC has be established.
Mere preparation of document under once own signature and writings by making false averments therein does not fall within the definition of forgery. The ingredient of the offence u/sec. 468 IPC is committing of forgery with a particular intent, that intent being that the document forged should be used for the purpose of cheating. The Section does not require that accused should actually commit the offence of cheating. Forgery is usually an act done in furtherance of some other criminal design. What is material is the intention or purpose of the offender in committing forgery.
20. To constitute an offence u/sec. 468 IPC, the complainant was required to establish that the accused had committed forgery and that he did it with an intention that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The term forged document is defined u/sec. 470 IPC. Sec. 471 IPC states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be forged shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Therefore, what this section requires is a use as genuine of any document which is known or believed to be forged document. The condition precedent for an offence u/sec. 467 and sec. 471 IPC is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document. Therefore, sec. 471 Aridaman singh IPC requires to use the forged document as genuine. To bring home, cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 27 of 38 singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:41 +0530 sec. 471 IPC user of a forged document as genuine, inter-alia must be made fraudulently and dishonestly. While deceit is an important ingredient of the definition of the word 'fraudulently' it is not an ingredient of the definition of the word 'dishonestly' which involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss, while the word 'fraudulently' by construction excludes that element. Further, it is required that the accused knew or had good reason to believe that it was not the signature of the person by whom the document is set to have been written.
21. 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;
(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, Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 28 of 38 2025.09.10 16:25:45 +0530 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.
The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document.
Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted.
To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person.
When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming Aridaman ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 29 of 38 singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:48 +0530 sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.
22. In the facts of the present case, PW-2 has stated in his testimony that he had met one person namely Sanjeev Kumar who claimed that Sanjeev Kumar was running a postal agency on behalf of his wife Smt. Munesh Devi. He has opened three RDA Accounts of Rs.10,000/- each. Accused Sanjeev Kumar had collected Rs.30,000/- per month from PW-1 from November, 2013 till April 2016. He had given the written complaint Ex.PW2/A to the police when the accused Sanjeev Kumar was unable to produce the postal books. PW-2 had admitted in his cross-examination that he used to hand over the said installments to accused Sanjeev Kumar.
23. PW-3 had stated that she had opened four separate RDA accounts through agent Sanjeev Kumar whom she know from last 13 years. PW-3 came to know that from post office that no monthly Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 30 of 38 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:52 +0530 installment had been deposited by accused Sanjeev Kumar from December, 2013 to October, 2015 and PW-3 had stated that accused Sanjeev Kumar had cheated him and she had given a written complaint to SHO PS Sarita Vihar i.e. Ex.PW3/A. She had admitted in her cross-examination that she did not know the wife (accused Munesh Devi) of accused Sanjeev Kumar
24. PW-4 had stated that he was the post master at Sarita Vihar post office in September, 2015. He further stated that accused Sanjeev Kumar voluntarily identified post office date stamps which was placed on deposits/withdrawal counter. He further stated that he informed the IO that as per record Munesh Devi is working as MPKBY Agent. PW-4 had also given the details of RDA accounts in the name of Deepa Shahi, Anand Singh, Kusum Lata, Aarti Nehal and Ankit Ganesh to the IO. He also stated that Sanjeev Kumar used to visit post office and also deal with the RD account and opened account by agent Munesh Devi. PW-4 had reported the matter to ASPO New Delhi, South-II, Sub Division, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi for inquiry for action against accused persons. He had admitted in his cross-examination that all the stamps and relevant papers in his supervision. He has also admitted that any agent including any public person has access to post office but they cannot use any stamp belonging to the post office.
25. PW-5 had brought the record regarding the issuance of high school certificate serial no. 0902577 in the name of Munesh Devi D/o Sh. Ilam Singh from Board of High School and Intermediate Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 31 of 38 Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:25:56 +0530 Education, UP. The said report is Ex.PW5/A (Colly) as per which there is no record of accused Munesh Devi in the Rukmani Modi Mahila Intercollege, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, UP. PW-6 has brought on record the letter written to the post master by senior account officer regarding of MPBKY Agency Code no. SS/MBA1341 issued in the name of Munesh Devi which is Ex.PW6/A. The approval of the appropriate authority is Ex.PW6/C, the documents related to Smt. Munesh Devi bearing the seal of directorate of small savings, Govt. of NCT (Ex.PW6/D) and the previous approval of competent authority (Ex.PW6/E) and the documents related to accused Sanjeev Kumar (Ex.PW6/F).
26. PW-7 had stated that he had opened RD account no. 252635 at post office Sarita Vihar to Sanjeev Kumar. He has further stated that accused Sanjeev Kumar did not written his passport and embazzled 23 installments.
27. PW-8 SI Mukesh Kumar, had investigated the present matter and had prepared rukka Ex.PW8/A. He had further stated that accused Sanjeev Kumar got recovered total four stamps vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/B and other documents recovered on behalf of accused Sanjeev Kumar are Ex.PW8/C. One notice u/s 41 A Cr.PC was served to accused Munesh Devi. During investigation, one notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was issued to post office Sarita Vihar and directorate of small savings and lotteries situated at Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. Three Aridaman passbooks in the name of Aniket Ganesh Yadav were seized vide singh cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 32 of 38 Date: 2025.09.10 16:26:02 +0530 seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. He had received reply of directorate of small savings. He had recorded the statement of witnesses. He had also obtained FSL report dated 19.06.2017 (Ex.A4) as per the FSL report, it was opined that impression of date stamps on the seized passbook did not match the date stamps sent to FSL. It was further opined that accused Sanjeev Kumar used to sign in the name of accused Munesh and made entries of alleged amount in the seized passbooks. It was further opined that admitted signatures of accused Munesh Devi did not match the signatures in the name of Munesh Devi in the RD account opening form. PW-8 had admitted in his cross-examination that during the course of investigation, it was found that while the agency was in the name of accused Munesh Devi, she had not contacted any person of public directly or even met any of the victims.
28. It has been held in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 8 SCC 751 (para 9 to 22), that :-
"9. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section
463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 defining "making a Aridaman singh false document" is extracted below : cheema "464. Making a false document.--A person is said to Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema make a false document or false electronic record--- Date: 2025.09.10 16:26:06 +0530 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 33 of 38 First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently -
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(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.
Digitally
signed by
Aridaman
Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name Aridaman singh
singh cheema
may amount to forgery.
cheema Date:
2025.09.10
16:26:09
+0530
FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 34 of 38
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.
[Note: The words `digital signature' wherever it occurs were substituted by the words `electronic signature' by Amendment Act 10 of 2009]."
The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.
10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without Aridaman singh lawful authority, after it has been made or cheema executed by either himself or any other person. Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 16:26:13 +0530 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 35 of 38 10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
29. It is pertinent here to mention that the judgment titled as Guru Bipin Singh vs Sh. Chongtham Manihar Singh& Anr., in which he stated that:
"....In view of all the above, we agree with Shri Jethmalani that the allegations made in the complaint, even if true, do not make out the case of forgery. Now, if forgery be not there, allegations under section 420 would fail because the allegation in para 5 of the complaint is that by "forging the said book" deception was caused and members of the public were induced to purchase the same. So, forgery is the principal allegation; cheating being a consequential offence. If forgery goes, cheating cannot stand. So,the complaint sections, namely 420, 465 and 468. It may be pointed out that 468 is intimately connected with 420 and 465."
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
30. It is pertinent to state in here that PW-1 had given a complaint initially against accused Sanjeev Kumar only. Even going by the examination in chief of PW-1, it has been nowhere mentioned that how accused Munesh Devi had deceived or defrauded the Digitally signed by Aridaman Aridaman singh singh cheema cheema Date:
2025.09.10 16:26:18 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 36 of 38 +0530 complainant. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7 have not mentioned anything about accused Munesh Devi and have only given the evidence regarding the embezzlement by accused Sanjeev Kumar (deceased) and have said nothing in context to accused Munesh Devi. Even going by the testimony of PW-8 who is the IO in the present case, he had also stated that as per the FSL reports the hand writting of Munesh Devi does not matches with the documents sent for forensic analysis. PW-8 had further admitted in his cross-examination that none of the victims were approached by accused Munesh Devi and none of them had even met accused Munesh Devi.
31. It is clear from the abovesaid discussion that accused Munesh Devi had not dishonestly induced any person or deceived any person to deliver any amount to her as she was not aware about any dealings done by her husband accused Sanjeev Kumar (deceased). The hand writtings of accused Munesh Devi does not match with the alleged documents as per the FSL report. None of the victims have ever met the accused Munesh Devi.
CONCLUSION
32. Further, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the Aridaman singh defence of the accused. Accused Munesh is entitled to the benefit of cheema Digitally signed by Aridaman singh cheema FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 37 of 38 Date: 2025.09.10 16:26:22 +0530 every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
33. In view of the above discussion and in light of above-mentioned case laws, the court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons were involved in the crime.
34. Therefore, in ultimate analysis as a result of trial, accused persons namely Munesh Devi @ Kaushal W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar is acquitted for the offences u/s 420/467/468/471/34 IPC.
Digitally signed Aridaman by Aridaman singh cheema singh Date: 2025.09.10 cheema 16:26:26 +0530 (ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA) JMFC-05, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 10.09.2025
The judgment contains 38 pages and each page have been digitally signed by the undersigned. Aridaman Digitally signed by Aridaman singh singh cheema Date: 2025.09.10 cheema 16:26:37 +0530 (ARIDAMAN SINGH CHEEMA) JMFC-05, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 10.09.2025 FIR No. 323/2016 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Page 38 of 38