Delhi District Court
Smt. Sunita Rani vs . The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 6 August, 2018
In the court of Additional Session Judge04, District Shahdara,
(Model/Pilot Project Court), Room No.51, Second Floor, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Smt. Sunita Rani Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)
CNR No.DLSH010044512018 date of institution : 06.07.2018
Crl. Revision No. 32/18 decision reserved on : 26.07.2018
I.D. No. 166/18 date of decision : 06.08.2018
In the matter of
Smt. Sunita Rani alias Sunita Kumari
w/o Sh. Praveen Kumar
resident of B10, Police Colony,
Welcome, Jafrabad, Delhi 53.
...Revisionist
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi)
...Respondent
J U D G M E N T [On revision petitioners/accused's petition arising out of order dated 18.05.2018 by the court of Ms. Deepti Devesh, Metropolitan Magistrate 04, Shahdara, Delhi, (in brief trial court)].
1. (Issue in revision petition) - The present revision petition is by petitioner/accused in case FIR No. 125/dated 10.07.2010 police station Welcome and in the present revision petition, petitioner assails order dated 18.05.2018 and consequently framing of formal charge u/s Crl. Revision No.32/18 Smt. Sunita Rani @ Sunita Kumari Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Page 1 of 8 420/471 IPC. In order to decided this issue, it needs introduction, since there are various facts involved.
2.1 (Background/introduction) - Petitioner Sunita Kumari is member of discipline force of Delhi Police. She joined Delhi Police on 25.09.2000 as a Constable (on temporary basis). A Civil Writ No.5976/2003 Chandeshwar Prasad Vs. Union of India was filed and consequent thereto directions were flowed with regard to reverification of S.T. certificates and the certificate of this petitioner Ct. Sunita Kumari was also verified, her certificate No.368/91 was purported to be issued by the Tehsildar, Neem Ka Thana, Seekar, Rajasthan, that she belongs to 'Meena' (ST) caste. The said certificate was found fake. It result into Departmental Enquiry against her, however, lateron the inquiry was concluded without any action against the petitioner. In the meantime, the FIR No.125/2010 was registered u/s 468/471/420 IPC against the applicant/petitioner. In addition, the petitioner applied and obtained certificate bearing No.10310 from the Office of Tehsildar, Khetri District, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan on 21.07.2010 which she furnished to her department and in this certificate also she was shown belonging to 'Meena' (ST) caste.
2.2 A final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was furnished before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, however Ld. M.M. by order dated 07.02.2012 directed for fresh investigation by officer not below the rank of ACP. It was again followed by cancellation report but it was not accepted by Ld. M.M. by order dated 06.05.2013, but cognizance u/s 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. for offences u/s 468/471 IPC was taken. Then the procedure followed Crl. Revision No.32/18 Smt. Sunita Rani @ Sunita Kumari Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Page 2 of 8 and it reached the stage to hear on the point of charge. Consequently, the order dated 18.05.2018.
2.3 These are the facts culled out from the voluminous & scattered record.
3.1 (Plea in revision petition) The petitioner is feeling aggrieved by order dated 18.05.2018 and framing of formal charge u/s 420/471 IPC, by reiterating the earlier proceedings and record, particularly the petitioner has been originally belonging to Meena caste, which is declared a Scheduled Tribes in Rajasthan by the Government of India, the certificate bearing No.368/91 was of the time, when the petitioner was 12/13 years, she could not have committed any cheating or forgery in that age, she was minor and the certificate was not obtained by her but some other family members. Since she was belonging to Meena (ST) caste, that is why further certificate was applied & obtained, it was furnished in her office, that has also been verified by the department, it was the reason for filing of final report and also cancellation report even after reinvestigation of the case.
However, the trial court failed to appreciate all these aspects but came to the conclusion that she gained the employment on the basis of use of fake certificate as well as the departmental inquiry are not binding on the court because of administrative proceedings, the investigation and reinvestigation by the police was not considered by the trial court. Under these circumstances, the impugned order suffers from serious error and the trial court has formed an opinion of guilt against the accused/petitioner, consequently the impugned order is Crl. Revision No.32/18 Smt. Sunita Rani @ Sunita Kumari Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Page 3 of 8 illegal and it infringes the rights of the petitioner, it is liable to be set aside and consequently the formal charge was framed against the petitioner.
3.2 (Submissions on behalf of petitioner) Sh. Abdul Rauf, Advocate for the petitioner reiterated the similar facts and circumstances by supplementing that the date of birth of petitioner is 01.07.1978 and in the year 1991 she was student of 7 th standard, in 1995 she was student of Secondary School and in 1998 she appeared for Senior Secondary School Examination followed by her pursuing three years Degree Course conducted by Rajasthan University. It was the same certificate No. 368 of 02.08.1991 acted upon with bonafide, which was obtained by her parents/family members and this petitioner was nowhere in the picture as she was a minor and on the same very basis, she had pursued her studies and also joined Delhi Police in 2000. The gamut of circumstances appearing are speaking themselves that a minor aged about 12 to 13 years cannot form an intention either to make any forgery or to use any document or to cheat any one. In case the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioner will suffer a lot, particularly the certificate No.10310 dated 21.07.2010 affirms about her caste, to which she belongs even in the year 1991. Lastly, during the investigation and in the departmental inquiry, the authorities have collected many certificates of the parents and of others, which also affirms that she belongs to Meena (ST) caste.
3.3 (Submissions on behalf of State) On the other side, Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State has reservations that in fact, Crl. Revision No.32/18 Smt. Sunita Rani @ Sunita Kumari Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Page 4 of 8 the plea taken in revision petition are the proposed defences. The petitioner is beneficiary from use of the certificate No.368/91 and when she joined the discipline force of Delhi Police, the said certificate was used by her and at that time she was a mature person being aspirant of the services of Delhi Police. Therefore, it would not undo the wrong of fake certificate No.368/91 if subsequently another certificate No.10310/2010 was obtained. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
4.1 (Findings with reasons) The contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the documentary record and the conclusions of trial court in order dated 18.05.2018 besides the provision of law, particularly sections 24, 25, 82, 83, 420 and 471 of IPC and section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.
4.2 Before taking the factual position of case, it is appropriate to decide the legal issue raised that the petitioner being 1213 years of age was not in a position to form any intention for commission of offence. As per section 82 IPC, by fiction of law (under general exceptions) nothing is an offence if it is done by a child under seven years of age and as per section 83 IPC it is also not an offence if it is done by a child above seven years of age and under 12 years, if he has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of conduct on that occasion.
The petitioner was between 1213 years of age and there is nothing on record to infer that general exception embodied in section 83 Crl. Revision No.32/18 Smt. Sunita Rani @ Sunita Kumari Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Page 5 of 8 IPC will be applicable to the petitioner. To that extent, the contention raised in revision petition stand disposed off.
4.3 For the purposes of appreciation of facts and law, it needs to reproduce sections 24 and 25 of IPC (since both are relevant from the point of sections 420 and 471 IPC), they read as under : Section 24. Dishonestly Whoever does anything with intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
Section 24. Fraudulently - A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
4.4 The total circumstances involved can be compiled like that petitioner belongs to Meena (ST) caste originally, the certificate No.10310 dated 21.07.2010 was also issued to her for this caste but the certificate No.368/91purported to be issued by the Tehsildar, Neem Ka Thana, District Seekar, Rajasthan, furnished by the petitioner, was found fake.
4.5 Section 420 IPC defines punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and definition of cheating is given in section 415 IPC and for that purposes there ought to be inducement, dishonestly or fraudulently to deceive the other and the petitioner had furnished certificate No.368/91 in the department of Delhi Police while joining as a Constable in the year 2000, it is the same certificate which she had inherited from her parents.
Crl. Revision No.32/18 Smt. Sunita Rani @ Sunita Kumari Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Page 6 of 8Similarly, section 471 IPC prescribed punishment for using as genuine a forged document and section 463 IPC defines forgery. The use of forged document as genuine ought to be fraudulently or dishonestly, having knowledge or reason to believe that the document being used as genuine is a forged document.
4.6 As per the facts on the face of record and material collected in investigation, nothing is appearing that the petitioner has done anything with intention of causing wrongful gain to herself or wrongful loss to other or she did nothing with intent to defraud, since the certificate No.368/91 was not obtained by her but it was her parents or relatives who entrusted it and she under bonafide, received from her family, furnished the same while applying as an aspirant of member of Delhi Police and she joined it, without any doubt in her mind to verify its authenticity visavis she has been belonging to Meena (ST) caste from the inception, which stand affirm by the subsequent certificate No.10310 dated 21.07.2010 issued by the Office of Tehsildar, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4.7 Since it does not fulfill the requirement of sections 420 and 471 IPC, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.05.2018 and formal charge framed on 18.05.2018 itself by the trial court does not survive. The revision petition is allowed and impugned order and formal charge are set aside. The petitioner is discharged.
5. The revision petition stand disposed off. The copy of this order with TCR be sent to the trial court forthwith as well as the petitioner will Crl. Revision No.32/18 Smt. Sunita Rani @ Sunita Kumari Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Page 7 of 8 be required to furnish bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C to the trial court on or before 25.08.2018, which was the date given by the trial court.
Announced in open court today Monday, 06th August, 2018 (Inder Jeet Singh) Additional Session Judge04 (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi 06.8.2018 Digitally signed by INDERJEET SINGH Location: Shahdara INDERJEET district, SINGH Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.08.07 13:20:04 +0530 Crl. Revision No.32/18 Smt. Sunita Rani @ Sunita Kumari Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Page 8 of 8