Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Singh on 30 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ RAI, JMFC-01,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. RAM SINGH & ANR.
FIR No. 446 / 2004
POLICE STATION BHAJANPURA
U/S 448/380/511(ii) IPC
Date of institution of the case : 31.05.2011
Date of judgment reserved : 29.03.2025
CNR : DLNE020000492005
Date of commission of offence : 16.10.2004
Name of the complainant : Ravinder Jain
Name and address of accused : (1) Ram Singh
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
R/o A-1418, Gali No.15,
Shri Ram Colony, Khajuri,
Delhi.
(2) Satender Kumar
S/o Sh. Late Sh. Roop Chand
R/o 1/5429, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 448/380/506/420/468/471/120B IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 30.04.2025
Final order : CONVICTED
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 1/21
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ RAI
RAI Date:
2025.04.30
17:07:24
+0530
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
1. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that accused Ram Singh was earlier tenant of one Kaushalya Devi in property bearing no. A-5/42, Bhajanpura, Delhi. That said Kaushalya Devi had taken bank loan against the abovementioned property and that on default of its repayment and upon her death, this property was purchased by complainant from DRT, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- and that on 12.06.2004 its possession was also handed over to complainant by the local commissioner with the help of police and compliance report of handing over of possession was filed in DRT, Chandigarh. It is alleged that accused Ram Singh pursuant to their agreement to commit cheating alongwith co-accused Satender Kumar, prepared forged rent receipt wherein accused Ram Singh has been shown as tenant and co-accused Satender Kumar has been shown as his landlord of said property and that on the strength of forged rent receipts, a civil suit for permanent injunction against co-accused Satender Kumar as landlord was filed whereby restraining to dispossess him from said property. Later on the said suit was disposed of as compromised on 27.05.2004 as co-accused Satender Kumar gave a statement before civil court that he will not dispossess the plaintiff i.e. accused Ram Singh from the property in question without due process of law. It is also alleged that the accused persons, thereafter, on 16.10.2004, committed house trespass after breaking the locks of above property and removed the articles of Ravinder Jain, attorney of complainant, which were lying there and trespassed therein and also threatened to kill the complainant. Based on the above allegations, the present FIR was registered by complainant's attorney Ravinder Jain under section 448/380/511(ii) IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE :
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 2/21Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:07:31 +0530
2. It is noteworthy, that after the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the Court against both the accused persons for the offences under Section 392/411/34 IPC. The copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.). Charge for the offences under section 448/380/506/420/468/471/120B IPC was framed against both accused persons by the Court vide order dated 03.05.2008. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION:
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses.
4. PW-1 is Saroj Devi. She is the duty officer who registered the FIR. She deposed that on 5.11.2004, she was posted at PS Bhajanpura as duty officer and her duty hours were from 8 am to 4 p.m. That at about 12.47 p.m., SI Virender had handed over her one rukka in the PS for registration of FIR, on the basis of which she registered the present FIR. whose copy was Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures. That she made necessary endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B bearing her signature. That after registration of FIR, she handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Satish for handing over the same to SI Virender.
5. PW-2 is Constable Satish Chand. He took part in the investigation with the IO. He deposed that on 05.11.2004, he was posted as Constable at PS Bhajanpura. That on that day, he joined the investigation of the present case along with the IO / SI Virender Singh Punia and that they both reached at the spot i.e. A-5/42, Street No.5, Bhajanpura, Delhi. That there they met accused Ram Singh. That IO interrogated the accused Ram Singh and after interrogation, he was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B. That disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded. That one mobile phone make Samsung and Rs.100/- were recovered from the personal search of the accused. That IO prepared mark X i.e. site plan of the spot. That his statement was FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 3/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:07:37 +0530 recorded by the IO. That on 17.11.2004, he again joined the investigation of the present case along with the IO. That on that day, accused Satender Kumar was arrested and personally searched by the IO vide memos Ex.PW-2/D and Ex.PW-2/E. That disclosure statement of accused Satender Kumar was also recorded by the IO which is Ex.PW-2/F. He deposed that he does not remember the complete facts of disclosure as long time has passed. That on 18.11.2004, he again joined the investigation of the present case along with the IO. That accused Satender Kumar, who was in police custody, was interrogated by the IO and he took them at his house situated at Balbir Nagar Extension and got recovered one rent receipt book on which MSTC Saraswati rent receipt was written (containing total 50 receipts, out of which five were of only counter foil and remaining 45 were complete receipts) from the steel almirah and same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/G bearing his signatures. That IO took the specimen signatures of accused Satender Kumar running into six pages Ex.PW-2/H1 to Ex.PW-2/H6 bearing his signatures. That IO recorded his statement. He correctly identified the rent receipt book Ex.Pl. He also identified his signatures on arrest memos, personal search memos, disclosure statements and seizure memo. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the court.
6. PW-3 is Bhupender Singh. He is the local witness. He deposed that he was doing the work of repairing fridge and AC. That accused Ram Singh was residing in front of his house on rent and owner / landlord of Ram Singh was one Mr. Goel. That landlord and accused Ram Singh were having some dispute. That he does not know anything else regarding this case. As he was resiling from his previous statement, Id. APP for the State cross-examined him ad he deposed that it is correct that on 12.06.2004, one Advocate alongwith purchaser of the plot came there and stated to Ram Singh that he purchased the said plot. After that Ram Singh alongwith his family left the premises. That he cannot say whether the persons who came from Chandigarh asked Ram Singh to produce the document if any in his defence or that they also suggested him to file the objections if any FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 4/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:07:42 +0530 to DRT Chandigarh. That he does not know whether the owner of the said house brought some articles in a truck in the evening from his factory and kept these articles inside the premises. That he does not know whether in the intervening night of 15/16 October, 2004, accused broke open the lock of the premises and removed those articles in a truck to unknown place. That he does not know whether the articles were kept at the premises. That he does not know whether on 16.10.2004 accused entered into house illegally. That he does not know whether on 17.10.2004 owner of the house called the police and since then accused is residing at these premises illegally. He was also confronted with the statement Mark X from point A to A. He deposed that it is correct that on 05.11.2004 accused was got arrested from the premises in question. That he does not know whether the brother of the accused removed the articles from the premises. He was again confronted with the previous statement from Mark B to B. He denied the suggestion that the accused is notorious person and use to grab the property of others. He was again confronted with the previous statement from Mark C to C. he denied the suggestion that he have been won over by the accused or that he is deposing falsely.
7. PW-4 is HC Amandeep. He deposed that on 18.04.2005, he was posted at DIU, North East, Bhajanpura. That on the said day, he was present at the DIU office and that he joined the investigation of the present case alongwith ASI Islamuddin. That on the said day, they reached Focal Point, Ludhiana to meet Satyam Aggarwal and Vijay Aggarwal, who handed over the papers pertaining to the property A-5/42, Bhajanpura, Delhi to the IO Islamuddin. That IO Islamuddin had taken the said documents into his custody and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A bearing his signatures. That, thereafter, they proceeded to the house of the stamp paper seller namely, Karnel Singh located at Model Town, Ludhiana where the IO had got received the photocopy of the register maintained by him with respect to the transaction (entries) of the said stamp papers and which were also taken into the custody by the IO and seized vide memo marked X (colly). That, thereafter, they proceeded to Chandigarh, DRT office where the FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 5/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:07:48 +0530 Section Officer Ranjana Rana met them and from whom IO had inquired with respect to the said property and recorded her Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. That, thereafter, they proceeded to Delhi. That IO recorded his statement with respect to the said investigation and relieved him thereafter.
8. PW-5 is HC Sant Kumar. He collected the call detail record upon the instructions of IO. He deposed that on 17.03.2004, he was posted as Constable at DIU, NE, Bhajanpura. That on the said day, he was present at the DIU office where the IO ASI Islamuddin had directed him to get the call details of two mobile numbers for the time period between 13.07.2004 to 09.11.2004, which he does not remember as a long time of around 13 years had elapsed. That he made a request to the concerned office to provide the call details of the said mobile numbers. That upon getting the same, he handed over it to the IO for further action and which was taken into the custody by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A bearing his signatures. That his statement was recorded by the IO with respect to the same. In the cross-examination by Ld. APP of the State he deposed that it is correct that he got the call details of the mobile numbers i.e. 9818286257 and 9810972990 mark X1 and X2 respectively from the respective offices at the instance of the IO.
9. PW-6 is Ranjana Rai. She was the section officer of DRT, Chandigarh. She deposed that on 19.04.2005, she was posted at DRT-1 Chandigarh as Section Officer (on deputation). That on that day, she handed over the certified copy of sale certificate bearing No. RC 355/2001 in the case of SBI Vs. M/s Single Cycles and Ors and certified copy of possession certificate which was purchased by one Satyam Aggarwal S/o Sh. Pramod Kumar R/o C-9, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab, which were exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A (5 pages) bearing her signatures.
10. PW-7 is WHC Indu. She deposed that On 05.11.2004, she was posted as Women Constable at PS Bhajanpura. That a call from PCR regarding incident of some theft at PS Bhajanpura was received in the PS and that she had prepared DD entry bearing No. 10A dated 05.11.2004 at 12:47 PM in register No. 2. She filed the order of concerned DCP FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 6/21 PANKAJ RAI Digitally signed by PANKAJ RAI North East bearing No. 32945-33044/HAR/NED dated 12.12.2018 regarding destruction of old record of PS Bhajanpura including said register and same was Mark A1.
11. PW-8 is Vijay Kumar. He deposed that he was working as Director-cum-partner in his private firm by the name of M/s Single Cycles Group. That he had taken a loan from State Bank of India after mortgaging the property i.e. House No. A5/42, Bhajanpura, Delhi. That the said property was in the name of his mother Smt. Kaushlya Rani. That he could not repay the loan amount to the bank and proceedings were initiated against him by SBI in DRT Court, Chandigarh with regard to above mentioned property. That during the DRT proceedings, he had settled the issue of unpaid amount of loan with SBI and DRT had permitted him to sell the above mentioned property after which, he had offered it to one Satyam Aggarwal. That said Satyam Aggarwal had deposited the settlement amount before DRT and that DRT thereafter, issued a sale certificate to Satyam Aggarwal on 26.02.2004 whose certified copy was exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A. That Satyam Aggarwal moved an application before DRT for seeking the possession of aforementioned property. That DRT had deputed one V. K. Oberoi as local commissioner, who had visited the aforementioned property upon which it was found that one room in the said property was vacated, however, the possession of second room was taken by accused Ram Singh. That accused Ram Singh had assured V. K. Oberoi to vacate the room within 15 days. That accused Ram Singh had filed an application in the Court of Ms. Rekha Rani, Civil Court, KKD, Delhi. That accused Ram Singh persuaded co-accused Satender to be the dummy landlord and filed the rent receipts Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 issued to him by landlord Satender Kumar. That a notice was issued to Satyam Aggarwal by concerned Civil Court thereafter. That Satyam Aggarwal had informed him about the same, after which, he also came to Delhi. That they had appeared before the Ld. Concerned Civil Court and presented their case and requested the Ld. Court to provide some time as they wanted to get the property in question vacated through due process of law. That Satyam Aggarwal had filed an application before DRT for seeking the FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 7/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:07:58 possession of property in question. That DRT had deputed a person namely Umang Kumar Khosla for the same. That letters were also issued by DRT to ACP and SHO concerned for assisting Sh. Umang Kumar Khosla in getting the property in question vacated which were Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B. That on 12.06.2004, possession of property in question was taken over by Sh. Umang Kumar Khosla who had put the lock in the premises and handed over the keys to Satyam Aggarwal vide Ex.PW-8/C. That they went away from the spot as possession was handed over to Satyam Aggarwal. That Satyam Aggarwal had given the rights in the property in question to Ravinder Jain, who was maternal uncle of Satyam Aggarwal, by executing a Special Power of Attorney Mark Z. That Ravinder Jain had placed his goods/ items in the property in question thereafter. That on 16.10.2004, he again received a call from Ravinder Jain that accused Ram Singh had again taken the illegal possession of the aforesaid property by breaking the locks. That said Ravinder Jain had also informed him that accused Ram Singh had threatened him by saying that he had sold all the goods placed in the premises and he had to face the consequence also. That Ravinder Jain had requested him to come, upon which he alongwith Satyam Aggarwal visited the property. That they found that 10 to 12 persons were present in the property in question. That in the next morning they called the PCR and had gone to the PS thereafter and showed their documents to the IO. That on 18.04.2005 he had received a call from IO for getting his statement recorded. That IO recorded his statement. That accused Ram Singh and his associates had also threatened Ravinder Jain for his life. He correctly identified both the accused persons in the court.
He also correctly identified the handwriting of Ravinder Jain on the complaint given to police as well as on the list of stolen articles Ex. PW-8/D and Ex. PW-8/E respectively. He also identified his signatures on arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Ram Singh. The copy of certified copy of order passed by Ms.Rekha Rani, the then Ld. Civil Judge, KKD was Mark Z1 during the evidence of PW-8.
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 8/21
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ RAI
RAI Date:
2025.04.30
17:08:03
+0530
12. PW-9 is Retd ACP Virender Singh Punia. He conducted initial investigation of this case. He deposed that on 18.10.2004, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Bhajanpura. That on 17.10.2004, DD No.5A regarding forced encroachment and possession of property was received to SI Om Pal. That thereafter, the same was marked to him by SHO PS Bhajanpura. That he carried out the investigation after obtaining legal opinion from the prosecution branch and prepared the tehrir Ex.PW9/A bearing his signatures. That FIR was registered on its basis. That thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. A5/42, Bhajanpura, Delhi, where he met with the complainant and prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/B bearing his signatures. That he met accused Ram Singh at the spot, who told him that he was the tenant of Satender Kumar. That complainant Ravinder Jain told him that the accused Ram Singh was in possession of the plot in question but complainant got the possession in a DRT, Chandigarh order and police officials and other civil authorities. That complainant further told that accused Ram Singh encroached the plot in question forcefully and threatened the complainant on phone to face the dire consequence, if he visited the plot in question. That thereafter, accused Ram Singh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and he was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/B. he identified his signatures on arrest memo and personal search memo. That accused Ram Singh disclosed him about sale of stolen articles from the property in question in the area of Nand Nagri vide disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C bearing his signatures. That no articles were recovered despite search. That police remand of accused Ram Singh obtained to trace whereabouts of co-accused Satender Kumar and despite best efforts no clue was found. That thereafter, accused Ram Singh was sent to JC. That on 16.11.2004, notice was sent to accused Satender Kumar and on 17.11.2004 accused Satender Kumar joined the investigation in PS Bhajanpura. That he interrogated the accused Satender Kumar who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D bearing his signatures and got personally searched vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/E bearing his signatures. That thereafter, accused Satender Kumar disclosed that he had filed a Civil Suit with regard to the property in question and he put accused Ram Singh as a tenant in the property in FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 9/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 question vide disclosure statement Ex.PW2/F bearing his signatures. That thereafter, rent receipt book Ex.X1 was recovered from the house of accused Satender Kumar and which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/G bearing his signatures. That some of the receipts as issued in the name of accused Ram Singh alongwith sample writing of accused Satender Kumar were obtained and seized. That thereafter, investigation of the present case was transferred to District Investigation Unit. He correctly identified both the accused in the Court today.
13. PW-10 Retd SI Islamuddin. He conducted remaining investigation of this case and filed the chargesheet. He deposed that on 08.12.2004, he was posted at DIU North East, Delhi as a ASI. That on that day, the present case file was received for further investigation. That on 17.12.2004, receipts, papers and signature samples etc. were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi. That he took the CDR records of accused persons. That he seized the CDR/Mobile Phone call records of Mobile Number 9818286257 (mark X1) and Mobile Number 9810972990 (mark X2) vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A bearing his signatures on 17/03/2004. That on 18/04/2004 he seized certain documents from DRT Chandigarh (i.e. special power of attorney prepared by the Satyam Aggarwal, Sale certificate issued by DRT, Chandigarh and Possession Order) vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW4/A bearing his signatures. That he also went to Ludhiana District Court for the verification of the stamp papers and found that the stamp papers were issued from there only. That he obtained the FSL Report and prepared the chargesheet and filed it before the Court.
14. The accused persons have not disputed the factum of filing of Civil Suit in the year 2004 as well as FSL report Ex.X1. They have also not disputed the verification of documents by Karnail Singh at District Court, Ludhiana vide their statement dated 14.02.2024. Hence, the concerned prosecution witnesses were dropped.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS:
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 10/21Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:08:13 +0530
15. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C/351 BNSS on 19.07.2024, wherein the accused persons pleaded their innocence and reiterated the defence that the rent was paid to accused Satender Kumar on the instructions of DR Goyal and that on 12.06.2004 and 16.10.2004 there was an attempt to forcibly evict co-accused Ram Singh and that on 17.11.2004 he was illegally arrested by the police with the manipulation of complainant. Only accused Ram Singh entered into witness box as defence witness DW-1. He was duly cross-examined by ld. APP for the State. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and that there are material contradictions in testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of the case. That the investigation of this case was suspicious in nature and that benefit of doubt must be given to accused persons when two views are possible. That no independent witnesses were associated in the present case and that suspicion cannot take place of proof as the prosecution story is highly doubtful. He has further relied upon the following judgments:
Rattni v. State I (1993) CCR 67 (SC), Babuda v. State of Rajasthan III (1992) CCR 270 (SC), Rohtash v. State 2011 (1) JCC 526, Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of MP 2004 (2) JCC 832, and Jahid @ Lambu v. State (GNCT of Delhi) 2009 (3) JCC 1760. On the other hand, Ld. APP submitted that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The complainant as well as all the prosecution witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and nothing material emerged out of it.
17. The respective submissions of learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for the accused persons have been considered. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused. There is no dispute regarding the propositions of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the accused. However, the same are distinguishable on facts.
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 11/21
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ RAI
RAI Date:
2025.04.30
17:08:17
+0530
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
18. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt 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 persons.
19. It is not in dispute that accused Ram Singh earlier was a tenant of Kaushalya Devi in the property bearing no.A-5/42, Bhajanpura, Delhi. The case of prosecution is that both the accused persons pursuant to their agreement to commit cheating with the complainant, prepared forged rent receipts showing accused accused Ram Singh as a tenant and co-accused Satender Kumar as his landlord in the said property and that those receipts were used by them in civil suit for permanent injunction before Ld. Civil Judge, and which disposed of as settled on 27.05.2024. It is the categorical stand of the accused persons that though the said receipts were prepared and that the payment of rent was also made to co-accused Satender Kumar, however the same was done on the instructions of one DR Goyal who was managing the property in the absence of Complainant.
20. To prove an offence in terms of section 420/120B IPC, there must be evidence of existence of conspiracy to commit cheating against the complainant by practicing deception with dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction. The dishonest intention is gist of the offence of cheating. Apparently, conspiracy and dishonest intention is not a tangible thing and there is no instrument as such to look into the minds of the persons to see what transpire in their mind when they interact and transact with others. The dishonest intention and agreement to commit cheating has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances.
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 12/21
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ RAI
RAI Date:
2025.04.30
17:08:23
+0530
21. As regards offence of forgery, it is settled provision of law that to establish forgery of a document, the original handwriting/signatures on the alleged forged document are to be compared with the specimen handwriting/signature. Section 463 of IPC defines the offence of `forgery' as:
"Whoever make any false document or part of a document 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 any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
22. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. The expression 'intent to defraud' implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property. The term 'forgery' as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention.
23. Section 464 IPC defines making of false document by providing that a person is said to have made a 'false document', if he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else.
24. The essential questions are: (i) is the document false, (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) Is it made with intent to defraud? If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused persons are liable for making a false document.
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 13/21
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ RAI
RAI Date:
2025.04.30
17:08:28
25. Section 468 IPC dealing with forgery for purpose of cheating provides that:
"Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
26. In the present case both the accused persons have not disputed the FSL Report Ex.X1 as well as the factum of filing of Civil Suit no.102/04 for permanent injunction in terms of their statement dated 14.02.2024. Perusal of FSL report Ex.X1 makes it clear that questioned documents as well as specimen handwriting are of one and same person i.e. co-accused Satender Kumar. It is specifically mentioned in the report that there is no divergence between questioned and specimen signatures. It has emerged on record that the rent receipt book Ex.X1 was recovered from the possession of co-accused Satender Kumar and its seizure memo Ex.PW2/G has also been proved. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position that it was co-accused Satender Kumar who has prepared the rent receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had tried to knit the story that the said receipts were prepared on the instructions of DR Goyal only. The burden of proving the said defence that those rent receipts were infact prepared on the instructions of DR Goyal lies upon the accused persons and the same was not substantiated by any material on record. The accused persons have not taken any steps to summon said DR Goyal as a defence witness or to led any other evidence to show that they were specifically instructed by DR Goyal to mention co-accused Satender Kumar as a Landlord and accused Ram Singh as his tenant in the said property in the rent receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The rent receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 contains false assertion of existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the accused persons and it has not been proved that the accused persons were so authorized by owner of property or by any person claiming under him in this regard. Thus, a false document in the form of rent receipt Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 has been made by co-accused Satender Kumar wherein he has been claiming FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 14/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:08:33 himself as a landlord of accused Ram Singh, after being allegedly authorised by one DR Goyal in this regard and which remained unsubstantiated ipse dixit of accused persons, and the existence of conspiracy to commit cheating against the complainant/owner of property is the inescapable inference which can be deduced from all these surrounding circumstances. Thus, accused persons are found to be liable for preparing false and forged document i.e. rent receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
27. As regards element of forged document being "intended to be used" for cheating, it is to be noted that it is evident from the evidence on record that both the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to commit cheating against the complainant by creation of forged document (i.e.rent receipts) for the purpose of filing of a civil suit for permanent injunction. It was the duty of accused Ram Singh to make payment of rent to his actual landlord/owner. He did not deposit the rent with the landlord. There is wrongful loss of rent to the landlord/owner and it is evident from the admitted stand of accused persons that said rent was collected by co-accused Satender Kumar from accused Ram Singh in cash as a landlord in lieu of which he had issued the rent receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 which have been proved to be false and fabricated. Thus, to my mind all the ingredients for offence u/s 420/468/120B IPC have been proved.
28. Now coming to offence under section 471 IPC. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. Section 471 IPC provides that:
"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."FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 15/21
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:08:42
29. To constitute an offence under Section 471 of IPC that there must be a false document made wholly or in part by forgery is designated as a forged document. The essential ingredients of Section 471 are:
(i) Fraudulent or dishonest use of document as genuine,
(ii) Knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one.
30. As discussed above there is sufficient material available on record, vide which it is proved that accused persons have conspired to cheat the complainant by forging rent receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and rent has also been collected. Now those rent receipts have been proved to be used by them in the civil suit no.102/04 for permanent injunction by showing co-accused Satender Kumar as decoy landlord and accused Ram Singh as his tenant and it was co-accused Satender Kumar who issued the said rent receipts to accused Ram Singh, which is even an admitted fact by accused persons. Even otherwise, charge under Section 471 IPC does not require that the forged documents should have been prepared by the user himself. The element of user of forged rent receipt in filing of civil suit is proved from the material on record. Having perused the testimony of PW 8 and other PWs and the undisputed factum of filing of civil suit for permanent injunction by accused persons, it has been proved that the accused persons have used the forged document i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 as a genuine document in the court. Nothing material emerged in the cross-examination of PWs so as to give any advantage to the accused persons in this regard. As such, the ingredients of offence u/s 471 IPC are also proved against both the accused persons.
31. Now dealing with charge under section 448 IPC. It prescribes punishment for the offence of house trespass which has been defined in Section 442 IPC. Before, an accused can be convicted for the offence under section 448 IPC read with Section 442 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had entered upon the property, which was in possession of another, with an intent to commit any offence or to intimidate, insult FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 16/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:08:47 +0530 or annoy the person in possession of such property. Similarly, if the accused after lawfully entering into such property has unlawfully remained there with a similar intent to commit any offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession shall also be held guilty for the offence of house trespass.
32. However, the essential pre-condition for holding a person guilty for the offence under section 448 IPC is that the complainant should be in possession of the property as on the date of commission of the offence. A prosecution under Section 448 IPC requires proof of actual physical possession of the property in relation to which the offence is alleged. In the case in hand PW-6 Ranjana Rai, Section Officer, DRT-1, Chandigarh has proved on record document Ex.PW6/A i.e certified copy of sale/possession certificate issued by DRT in favour of complainant Satyam Aggarwal. PW-8 Vijay Kumar, who was the seller of property to complainant, had deposed that earlier he took a loan and mortgaged the property to SBI and upon his failure to repay the said loan, SBI instituted proceedings against him before DRT wherein Complainant emerged as purchaser and sale certificate Ex.PW6/A was issued in complainant's favour by DRT. That complainant had filed application before DRT seeking possession of property. He also deposed that DRT had deputed one local commissioner, namely, Umang Kumar Khosla for this purpose and who took police assistance in terms of Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and that on 12.06.2004 possession of property was taken over by said Umang Kumar Khosla who had put lock in the premises and handed over the keys to complainant in terms of document Ex.PW8/C. Therefore, from the above it is manifest that legal and physical possession of property was taken over by the complainant on 12.06.2004. PW-8 also deposed that on 16.10.2004 he received call from Ravinder Jain that accused Ram Singh had taken illegal possession of property by breaking open the locks. That he alongwith complainant reached the reached the spot found 10-12 present in the said property. Once the physical possession of property has been taken over by the complainant on 12.06.2004 as mentioned in Ex.PW8/A to FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 17/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:09:38 Ex.PW8/C then the act of accused 16.10.2004 in again re-entering into the said property without consent of complainant and taking its illegal possession on 16.10.2004 squarely falls within the scope of section 448 IPC. The culpable intent to commit offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the landlord who is in legal possession of property is manifest from the acts of the accused Ram Singh. The burden then lies upon the accused to show as to how his possession was legal on the date of his re-entry on 16.10.2004 and he has failed to discharge the same. The mere fact that no broken locks were recovered from the spot is immaterial as certified copy of documents of DRT proceedings Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C clearly shows that on 12.06.2004 the property was locked and that its possession was given to complainant through his representative Ravinder Jain who has put his own locks of Harisson bearing no.12,85,94,38 and 21. It is not the case of accused Ram Singh that someone else had broken the locks and that the property was lying unlocked when he entered into its possession on 16.10.2004 and no such suggestions were given to any of the prosecution witnesses. The plea of accused that there was authorization from DR Goyal, who was managing the property in the absence of Complainant, in this regard is not proved by any material on record. Nothing incriminating emerged against co-accused Satender Kumar that he has participated in the commission of offence under section 448 IPC. Hence, charge under section 448 IPC has been successfully proved by the prosecution against accused Ram Singh only.
33. As regards offence under section 380 IPC, the case of prosecution is that on 16.10.2004 the accused persons dishonestly removed articles of Ravinder Jain, who was attorney of complainant after the commission of house trespass. The burden lies upon prosecution to prove that said Ravinder Jain kept his articles on the property and that it was accused persons who removed the articles. It has emerged on record that said Ravinder Jain had already expired and hence could depose before the court. The prosecution relies upon Mark Z to show that these goods/items were kept in the property by attorney Ravinder Jain while taking possession of property and that Ex.PW8/E was the FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 18/21 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:09:43 list of articles/goods which were stolen by accused persons. It is to be noted that no such goods/articles have been recovered from the accused persons. PW-9 himself has deposed that no articles were recovered from accused persons. There is also no credible evidence on record that goods and articles as mentioned in Ex.PW8/E were ever kept in the property by attorney Ravinder Jain nor any prosecution witness has claimed that any such articles were ever kept in the property. Hence, there is doubt regarding the presence of goods and articles in the property and its removal by accused persons. Therefore, charge under section 380 IPC has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons.
34. The other set of allegations against the accused persons revolves around commission of offence under section 506 IPC. Following are the essentials of the offence of Criminal Intimidation as defined under section 503 IPC:
(a) It must be a positive act of causing threat to a person;
(b) It must be directed towards his person, property or reputation;
(c) It must be directed towards the person or reputation or property of anyone in whom the victim is interested;
(d) It must be done with the intention of causing alarm to such a person; or
(e) It must cause him to do something which he is not legally bound to do or refrain him from doing something which he is legally bound to do.
35. Let this court examine the fact whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons under section 506 IPC or not. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere words do not constitute an offence under section 506 IPC against accused and there should be evidence to show that acts, gesture or words of the accused have caused alarm to the complainant to prove an offence under section 506 IPC against the accused persons. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on section 506 IPC in Manik Taneja & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr (2015) 7 SCC 423 wherein it was held that:
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 19/21Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI RAI Date:
2025.04.30 17:09:48 "It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of 'Criminal intimidation'. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant."
36. In the present case, the actual words employed by the accused persons have not been mentioned in the depositions of prosecution witnesses. Vague statement of PW-8 that both accused persons have extended death threats to Ravinder Jain simpliciter is not sufficient. It has emerged on record that Ravinder Jain had already expired. It is well settled that mere threat is no offence. Further, no evidence whatsoever has been led on the aspect of 'culpable intention' and 'causation of alarm' to Ravinder Jain. No evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove the fact that the alleged threat extended to Ravinder Jain had caused any alarm to him or that due to the alleged threat, he had omitted from any of his work. It is also not clear as to what are the exact words used by accused persons at relevant point of time. Thus, the ingredients constituting the offence of criminal intimidation are not fulfilled and no offence under section 506 IPC is made out against both the accused persons.
37. To sum up, in view of aforesaid discussion, accused Ram Singh and Satender Kumar are held guilty and stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420/468/120B/471 IPC. Accused Ram Singh is further convicted for the offence under section 448 IPC and accused Satender Kumar is acquitted of the said offence. Both accused persons are acquitted from the charge of offence under section 380/506 IPC.
38. Let the convicts be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convicts.
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 20/21
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ RAI
RAI Date:
2025.04.30
17:09:53
+0530
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ RAI
RAI Date:
2025.04.30
17:09:59
+0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON (PANKAJ RAI)
30th April, 2025 JMFC-01, North East District
Karkardooma Courts/30.04.2025
This judgment consists of 21 pages and each page of this judgment is Digitally signed by me. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ RAI Date:
RAI 2025.04.30
17:10:02
+0530
(PANKAJ RAI)
JMFC-01, North East District
Karkardooma Courts/30.04.2025
FIR No.446/04 State Vs. Ram Singh Page No. 21/21