Delhi District Court
State vs Jogender Singh Rana on 18 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS JYOTI NAIN
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
CIS No. 5284536/2016
FIR No. 46/2010
U/s 420/468/471/474 IPC
PS: Swaroop Nagar
State v. Joginder Singh Rana
Date of Institution of case:-10.09.2013
Date of Judgment reserved:-18.12.2024 (at 12:30 pm)
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 18.12.2024(at 03:00 pm)
JUDGMENT
CNR Number : DLNT020010652013 Date of Commission of : In the year 2008 offence Name of the : Sh. Tulsi Ram complainant Name of the accused : Joginder Singh Rana person Offence complained of : Section 420/468/471/474 IPC Charge framed of : Section 420/467/468/471 IPC Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Date of order : 18.12.2024 Final Order : Acquitted for offence u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC JYOTI Digitally signed by JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date: 2024.12.18 18:04:22 +0530 FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 1 of 18 The brief reasons for judgement :
1. Accused Joginder Singh Rana is facing trial for the offences u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that in the year 2008, complainant Tulsi Ram purchased the property bearing khasra No. 91/92, Village Ibrahimpur, Delhi measuring 300 square yards (hereinafter referred as property in question) from one Rajnish Dhawan, Rajeev Sharma and Jai Prakash (100 square yards each) and the same was purchased by them from accused Joginder Singh Rana in the year 2007 when accused cheated and dishonestly induced the three persons mentioned above to purchase the property from the accused and thereafter those persons transferred that property to the complainant under the impression that they became the true owner of the property. Further, in the year 2007, accused Joginder dishonestly or fraudulently forged the documents i.e. agreement to sell of the property bearing khasra No. 91/92 which was alleged to be executed by Smt. Shani Devi W/o Sh. Ram Chander in favour of accused Joginder Singh Rana and thereby he prepared the forged document with intention to cheat. Further in the year 2007, accused Joginder Singh Rana fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine the above mentioned agreement to sell which he knew or had reason to believe the same to be forged document. According to prosecution, accused Joginder Singh Rana had committed offences punishable under Section 420/467/468/471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, upon investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused.
Investigation
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.PC. for brevity]. Accused Joginder Singh Rana was already JYOTI Digitally signed by JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date: 2024.12.18 18:04:27 +0530 FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 2 of 18 released on anticipatory bail. Relevant record was collected. The final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., was prepared against the above named accused and challan was presented in the Court.
3. The cognizance of the alleged offences was accordingly taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court. After supplying the copy of charge-sheet and documents to accused, provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were also complied with.
4. A prima facie case under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, was found to be made out against the accused Joginder Singh Rana. Charge for offence under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC is framed against the accused on 20.11.2015 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution had examined 12 witnesses.
6. PW-1 Sh. Tulsi Ram deposed that in the year 2008 and in the month of March, one of his neighbour Sh. Kishan Giri had seen one lady located in Ibrahim Pur area, Khasra No.91 land measuring 300 sq. yards through one property dealer namely Gyani Ram Soni and his son Rakesh Soni. The property dealer namely Gyani Ram Soni had made his friend Kishan Giri meet one Suman Sharma and Ved Prakash Sharma who were living right opposite to the property in question and they had assured him of clear title and informed that the said land in the name of Rajeev Sharma, Rajnish and Jai Prakash. Accordingly, his neighbour was induced to buy the property in question, however,since he was falling short of cash. Hence, he came to him for financial help. He also agreed with his neighbour Kishan Giri and contributed Rs.4,50,000/- in the total purchase amount of Rs.13,50,000/-.
He further deposed that both of them were deceived and induced as to clear title by the above mentioned property dealers namely Gyani Ram Soni and Rakesh Soni in connivance with Suman Sharma, Ved Prakash Sharma, Digitally signed by JYOTI NAIN JYOTI NAIN Date: 2024.12.18 18:04:31 +0530 FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 3 of 18 Rajeev Sharma, Rajnish and Jai Prakash.
He has further deposed that Ved Prakash Sharma and his wife Suman Sharma had showed one agreement to sale to Kishan Giri which had been entered between Gyani Ram Soni and Rajeev Sharma, Rajnish and Jai Prakash who were shown to be present owners of 100 sq. yards each (3 plots adjacent in Khasra No. 91) of property in question. Gyani Ram Soni, Rakesh Soni, Suman Sharma, Ved Prakash Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Rajnish and Jai Prakash, all of them in connivance assured Kishan of clear title of the said land.
He has further averred that Gyani Ram Soni was acquinted with Kishan since 20 years. Gyani Ram Soni and his son Rakesh Soni had also provided sale documents as to the chain of documents to property in question wherein the sale deed had been executed by Joginder Singh Rana correctly identified in the Court in favour of Rajeev Sharma, Rajnish and Jai Prakash. Gyani Ram Soni executed one agreement to sell dated 17.01.2008 of the abovesaid land in question in favour of Kishan Giri which is Mark X. The deal was stuck in a total amount of Rs.13,50,000/- in lieu of which advance of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid as earnest money (Bayana) while the rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale documents. The property dealer Gyani Ram Soni and his son Rakesh Soni had reflected and induced Kishan Giri to believe that they had authority and consent of the alleged owners namely Rajeev Sharma, Rajnish Dhawan and Jai Prakash of the property in question.
He has further deposed that the sale documents of the property in question located in khasra No. 91, Ibrahimpur (DCM colony) were executed in favour of him. Jai Prakash was executed one affidavit, general power of attorney, deed of sale agreement, possession letter, receipt and deed of will regarding plot land area measuring 100 sq. yards (20 x 45), khasra No. 91, situated in the area of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi which was marked JP1 to JP6.
He has further deposed that Rajeev Sharma and Rajnish Dhawan who had represented themselves as General power of attorney holders of Joginder JYOTI Digitally signed by JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date: 2024.12.18 18:04:37 +0530 FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 4 of 18 Rana and had executed one General Power of Attorney in his name regarding plot of land land area measuring 200 sq. yards, being part of khasra No. 91, situated in the area of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi and the same was marked as Mark JR-1. Joginder had executed one affidavit, general power of attorney, agreement to sell and purchase, receipt, possession letter and deed of will regarding plot of land measuring 100 sq. yards size 20 x 45, part of khasra No. 91, situated in the area of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi in the name of Sh. Rajiv Sharma and the same were marked R-1 to R-6. Joginder had executed general power of attorney, agreement to sell and purchase, receipt, possession letter and deed of will, affidavit regarding plot of land measuring 100 sq. yards sized 20 x 45, part of khasra No. 91, situated in the area of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi in the name of Sh. Rajnish Dhawan and the same were marked as Mark R-7 to R-12.
He has further deposed that Joginder had executed, agreement to sell, general power of attorney, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and deed of will regarding plot of land measuring 100 sq.yards size 20 x 45, part of Khasra No. 91, situated in the area of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi in the name of Sh. Jai Prakash and the same were marked as Mark R-13 to R-18.The accused Joginder Rana had also shown to them documents as to the chain of the plot in question which he had purportedly got from one Shanti Devi. The said documents namely general power of attorney, agreement to sell, will receipt and affidavit regarding plot of land measuring 300 sq. yards size 60 x 45, part of khasra No. 91, situated in the area of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi and known as DCM colony, Delhi in the name of Sh.Shanti Devi and the same were marked as Mark R-19 to R-23.
Based upon the same general power of attorney and authority as deceivingly shown to him to be given to Rajeev Sharma and Rajnish Dhawan by Joginder Rana documents such as agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter, deed of will (Rajiv Sharma) and another deed of will (Rajnish FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 5 of 18 Dhawan) were executed in his name regarding the property in question as mentioned in the documents and same were marked as Mark JR2 to JR7.
Based upon all these documents, he and Kishan Giri were deceived to buy the property in question.
He has further deposed that all the above said documents related to sale executed in his favour which were executed after full payment of balance amount of Rs.12 Lacs. The police officials had seized the original documents in his presence vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. IO had prepared a site plan at his instance and at the instance of Kishan Giri which is marked as Mark SP.
On 30.08.2008, when he and Kishan Giri were getting a boundary wall constructed around the piece of land with a gate some people with Pradeep Yadav came the spot and demolished the boundary wall and claimed to be owner of the land. When they inquired him and asked him to produce the documents, he refused to do so. Thereafter, he had called at 100 number and accordingly, informed the police officials regarding the incident. However, since no action was taken by the police officials.
He has further deposed that he came to know later on that the said land was part of Gram Sabha and that the accused in connivance with Gyani Ram Son, Rakesh Soni, Suman Sharma, Ved Prakash Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Rajnish and Jai Prakash had fabricated false chain of documents. They all had various and separate role such as executants, witnesses etc. in the documents and as mediators. He and Kishan Giri had moved one criminal complaint Mark CC based upon which the present FIR was registered. He correctly identified accused Joginder in the Court.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. PW2 Giani Ram deposed that in the year 2010, he was working as Goldsmith and was having jewellery shop in the name of Rajasthan Jewellers and except that he was not doing any other work at that time. He has further FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 6 of 18 deposed that in the year 2010, he was not working as property dealer on commission basis. He was residing at the above said address since 1994. He know Suman Sharma who was residing in the DCM colony at that time. The alleged plot measuring 300 sq. yards was also situated in the DCM colony. He has further deposed that one day Suman told him that the alleged plot was belonging to their known and she told him that the same may be sold to other persons on commission. He did not remember the per square yard rate of the said plot, however, he had entered into Ikrarnama between him and Kishangiri regarding the sale and purchase of the above said plot bearing khasra No. 91. The said Ikrarnama was already marked as Mark X and exhibited as Ex. PW2/A (colly. 3 pages) .
On a question put to this witness that whether he had taken consent from the owners of the alleged property for Ikrarnama between him and Kishan Giri he replied his son Rakesh had talked to them.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. PW3 Sh. Kishan Giri deposed that he had been residing at the above said address for the last 30-32 years and at that time he was working as daily wager. He has deposed that in the year 2008, he alongwith Tulsi Ram and Dalel had met with Giani Ram Soni who was working as goldsmith at that time for purchasing land. Giani Ram told him that his son Rakesh who worked as property dealer. Giani Ram had shown a plot measuring 300 sq. yards which was situated in front of the house of a lady namely Suman. Giani Ram and he had talked to the lady Suman regarding the said plot. Suman had told him that the said plot was purchased by a party through her. He asked Suman and Giani Ram to arrange talk with the real owner regarding the transaction, upon which Giani Ram told him that he will arrange meeting with the owner of the said plot subject to the payment of brokerage. Giani Ram told him that he knows Suman very well and Suman knows the owners very well. He talked to his friends JYOTI Digitally signed by JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date: 2024.12.18 18:05:10 +0530 FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 7 of 18 Tulsi Ram and Dalel regarding the purchasing of the said land measuring 300 sq. yards jointly and told them regarding my talk with Giani Ram and Suman upon which they told him to go ahead and get the agreement executed in his name and later on they will get it divided as per their shares. After that Giani Ram and his son Rakesh told him that they had good relations with him and were known to each other and he had further asked him to get the Ikrarnama executed. They had fixed the rate of said plot @ Rs.4500/- per square yard. On the date of Ikrarnama he had given some money in the hand of Rakesh Soni in the presence of Giani Ram. He did not remember the exact amount which had been given by him. Probably he had given 2-3 lacs as bayana. The Ikrarnama was prepared between Giani Ram Ji and himself which was already Ex. PW2/A(colly. In three pages). On that day he had not given any brokerage to Giani Ram as it was agreed between him and Giani Ram that after finalization of deal and preparation of documents the commission will be given to him. The said Ikrarnama was having the handwriting of the son of Giani Ram namely Rakesh for the purchase of the said 300 square yards land. The full payments was to be given to the owner/party. Within that period they had met with the owners of the said plot and the owners of the said plot had shown the chain of documents to him and Tulsi Ram. On their assurance and bonafide they purchased the said plot in the name of his friend Tulsi Ram and the relevant documents was prepared between the owners and Tulsi Ram and he had put his signatures on the same. On being shown the documents i.e. General Power of Attorney attested by Notary/Delhi, agreement to sell, affidavit dated, receipt, possession letter, Deed of Will (in two sheets) all dated and notarized on 24.03.2008, he admitted that he had signed on the said documents. The said documents were exhibited as Ex. PW3/A to Ex. PW3/E(colly.) He has further deposed that the land measuring 200 sq. yards was purchased by them in the name of Tulsi Ram from Rajeev Sharma and Rajnish Dhawan vide the above said exhibited documents and another 100 sq. yards FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 8 of 18 was purchased by another person whose name he did not remember. The relevant documents was on record. His signatures were not present on the 100 square yard documents.
On a question put to this witness that what was the role of Giani Ram in the said transaction he replied that Giani Ram was previously known to him and he was acting as a broker for the purchase of the said land for him on commission basis.
He has further deposed that during the transaction of his land, he did not met with or talked to the accused Jogender present in the Court.
On a leading question put by Ld. APP for the State that as per the document Ex. PW2/A he had given Rs.1,50,000/- to Giani Ram vide Ikrarnama dated 17.01.2008 and total amount was agreed at Rs.13,50,000/- for the purchase of khasra No. 91 having measurement 60 x 45 sq. yards whether it was correct, he replied that it was correct.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. PW4 Smt. Suman deposed that the alleged plot measuring 300 sq. yards was in front of her house and she used to tie her buffalos in that land as she was working as milk vendor. She was tying the buffalos as the land was vacant and she was not knowing at that time to whom that plot was belonging. This fact pertained to about 10 years back. She did not remember the exact year. She kept tying buffalos in the said plot for 5-6 years and Joginder Singh was coming at the plot regularly. One day Joginder Singh came to her and told her that he had sold the said plot and also asked her not to tie the buffalo in the said plot. At that time, Joginder Singh was not taking any rent or she had not given money to him. One person namely Soni was coming there for purchase of the plot alongwith one Giri. She did not remember any other facts regarding the case.
She was declared hospital by Ld. APP for the State and during cross-
Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: NAIN 2024.12.18 18:05:17 +0530 FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 9 of 18
examination by Ld. APP for the State she admitted that the incident pertained to year 2008. At that time her brother Ram Naryan had got sold two plots measuring 100 sq. yards each to Rajnish and Rajiv and remaining 100 sq. yards was sold to Jai Prakash. She had admitted that after sometime Rajiv, Rajnish and Jai Prakash were willing to sale out the said plot. She had admitted that at that time one person namely Giani Ram Soni met her for purchase of the said land and he called two persons namely Tulsi Ram and Kishan Giri before her who were willing to purchase the land. She had arranged talk between Rajiv, Rajnish, Jai Prkaash and Tulsi Ram. She had signed as a witness on the papers of the land sold by Jai Prkaash to Tulsi Ram of land measuring 100 sq. yards out of khasra No. 91 situated in the area of village Ibrahimpur vide general power of attorney Ex. PW4/A , deed of sale agreement Ex. PW4/B, possession letter Ex. PW4/C, receipt Ex. PW4/D and Deed of Will Ex. PW4/E. She had admitted that she did not disclose the above said facts in her examination in chief due to lapse of time and memory. She has further deposed that IO recorded her statement. She correctly identified accused Jogender Singh Rana in the Court.
She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10 PW4 Sh. Ram Naryan deposed that she was aware of the present case as it related to the plot in front of his house. The said plot was 300 sq. yards. He had been residing at house No. 39, F Block, DCM Colony, Ibrahim Pur, Delhi for the last 29 years. He did not know to whom he had sold the plot. He had been called as a summoned witness. He know accused Joginder Singh Rana fr the last 10-12 years as he came to his house to ask to remove the cows and buffaloes which he had tied in the empty plot. Only then he got to know that this plot belonged to Joginder Singh Rana as he had told him so. Since then he had seen Joginder Singh Rana coming to the plot. Accused Joginder had talked to him about selling the plot and with regard to that he had made him meet 2-3 FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 10 of 18 people whose name he did not recall. He know that accused and those people had made the sale deal of the said plot as he had signed as a witness on the documents. He had admitted that this plot had been sold in three parts.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
11. PW5 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Soni deposed that on 24.07.2007 he had purchased a plot ad measuring 100 sq. yards at khasra N. 91, DCM colony, Ibrahimpur from one Joginder Singh Rana. Sh. Joginder Singh Rana was introduced to him by one Ms. Suman Sharma. On 23.03.2008, he sold the said plot to one Tulsi Ram on the basis of documents which he received from above said Joginder Singh Rana present in the Court and correctly identified bythe witness.
He has further deposed that after one year, he was called to PS Swaroop Nagar where he came to know that the documents which he received from Joginder Rana were false and fabricated and on the basis of those documents, Joginder Singh Rana had sold him the above said plot.Thereafter, police recorded his statement.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. PW6 Sh. Rakesh Kumar deposed that he was running a jewellery shop in the name and style of Jeenh Bhawani Jewelelrs at Sundey Market, Nathupura, Delhi. A ladynamely Suman who was risiding at DCM Colony, Ibrahimpur, Delhi in the month of Septermber, 2010, Suman had called three persons at her house and told that they all having plot ad measuring 100 sq. yards each in front of her house. All the above said three persons had sold their respective plots to one Tulsi Ram and Kishan Giri (property dealer in Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi). He introduced Tulsi Ram, Kishan Singh Giri to Rajeev, Rajnish and Jai Prakakh through above said Suman. He had signed the documents which were executed in favour of Rajeev and Rajnish as witness.
FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 11 of 18 He was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and during cross- examination he denied the suggestion that aforesaid Tulsi Ram had given him Rs.60,000/- as commission for the abovesaid deal. However, he admitted that the abovesaid Tulsi had promised him to give Rs.60,000/- as commission. He denied the suggestion that Suman had received Rs.30,000/- from Tulsi Ram. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW6/A from point A to A1 wherein it was so recorded. He admitted that police official recorded his statement in the PS. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
13. PW7 Rajeev Sharma deposed that in the year 2007, he had purchased a plot of 100 sq. yards (20 x 45) part of khasra No. 91, situated at village Ibrahimpur, Delhi from the accused Joginder Singh Rana whose identity was not disputed by Ld. Counsel for the accused. GPA of above mentioned property executed by Joginder Singh Rana in his favour Ex. PW7/A. Agreement to sell and purchase of the above mentioned property executed by Joginder Singh Rana in his favour Ex. PW7/B. Payment receipt document, possession letter and deed of will of above mentioned property were now Ex. PW7/C, Ex. PW7/Dand Ex. PW7/E respectively.
On 24.03.2008, he sold the above mentioned property to Tulsi Ram. GPA of the abovesaid property executed by him in favour of Tulsi Ram already Ex. PW3/A. Agreement to Sell of the above mentioned property executed by him in favour of Tulsi Ram already Ex. PW3/B. His affidavit regarding the above said property already Ex. PW3/C. Payment receipt document and possession letter of above mentioned property Ex. PW7/F, PW7/G. Deed of Will executed by him already Ex. PW3/D. IO recorded his statement.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
14. PW8 Sh. Pradeep Yadav deposed that on 30.04.1992 he had purchased plot No. 22,23,24,25, 29, 30, 38, 39, 49, 50 bearing khasra No. 91-92, village FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 12 of 18 Ibrahimpur, Delhi from Govind Ram S/o Sh. Shiv Dayal.
On 30.03.2008, he came to know that some people were working of construction at his above mentioned plots. He went to his property and on inquiry, he came to know that accused Joginder Singh Rana had sold his property/plot by preparing false/fake documents. He showed original documents of his above mentioned property/plot to IO and till that day he was in possession of above mentioned property.
On 27.11.2010, Govind Ram died and he handed over the death certificate of Govind Ram to IO and IO recorded his statement.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
15. PW9 Sh. Manoj Kumar Dahiya, Patwari deposed that he was a summoned witness. He brought record of khasra No. 91 & 92 of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi. As per revenue record, khatoni year 2003-04, khasra No. 91 & 92 of village Ibrahimpur, Delhi belonged to Gram Sabha Land/Govt. Land. The document/hkhatoni pertaining to above mentioned property was Ex. PW9/A(OSR)(running into 10 Pages). The seizra of the above said property Ex. PW9/B was on record.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
16. PW10 Sh. Ashok Kumar deposed that he was residing at the above mentioned address alongwith his family. In the year 1992, Sh. Pradeep Yadav had purchased the plot No. 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 38, 39, 49 and 50 (part of khasra No. 91 & 92) from Govind Ram S/o Sh. Shiv Dayal for consideration amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. He signed on the GPA executed between Govind Ram and Pradeep Yadav as a witness at point A. He also appeneded his signatures on agreement to sell, receipt of payment, possession letter, deed of Will at point A respectively. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 CrPC.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 13 of 18
17. PW11 Inspector Madan Mohan deposed that on 16.06.2012, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as inspector. On that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him by the concerned SHO.
During the invstigaiton, on 23.10.2021, Pradeep Yadav handed over photocopies of GPA, agreement to sell, possession letter, deed of Will, receipts, pertaining to the property i.e. plot N. 23, 24, and 35, khasra No. 91, Village Ibrahimpur, Delhi and the documents were Ex. X1(colly.) He seized the above said documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. On 10.20.2013, he prepared site plan Ex. PW11/B at the instance of the complainant and recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. After completion of investigation, he prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the Court for trial.
He was cross-examined with Nil, opportunity given by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
18. PW12 Inspector Sanjeev Kumar Verma deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as SI. On 01.05.2010, he received the present case file for investigation by the order of concerned SHO. During investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses, seized original chain of documents as provided by the complainant vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. According to seizure memo, he seized Ikrarnama Ex. PW2/A and affidavit, GPA, Deed of sale agreement, possession letter, payment of receipt, deed of will marked as JP1 to JP6. He also seized the documents executed by Rajeev Sharma and Rajnish Sharma in favour of Tulsi already marked as Mark JR1 to JR7.
He also seized the document i.e. affidavit executed by accused Joginder Singh marked as Mark R1. He also seized the documents pertaining to the property in question which were executed by accused Joginder Singh in favour of Rajeev Sharma marked as Mark R1 to R6.
FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 14 of 18 He also seized the documents pertaining to the property in question which were executed by accused Joginder Singh in favour of Rajnish Dhawan already marked as Mark R7 to R11.
He also seized the documents pertaining to the property in question which were executed by accused Joginder Singh in favour of Jai Prakash already marked as Mark R13 to R18.
He wrote a letter to the concerned SDM for obtaining relevant revenue record pertaining to khasra No. 91 and 92, village Ibrahimpur, Delhi constituting the piece of land alleged to have been sold to the complainant by the alleged persons, the letter Ex. PW12/A. The requisitioned documents Ex. PW9/A (running into 10 pages) were provided by the concerned SDM office. As per revenue record, the land in question belonged to Gram Sabha, Village Ibrahimpur, Delhi. On obtaining sufficient evidences against the accused Joginder Singh Rana who was present in the court and correctly identified by the witness, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW12/B and released him on police bail as per anticipatory order dated 27.08.2010 of Ld. ADJ. Accused Joginder Singh Rana had sold the property in question by preparing false and fabricated documents of ownership to Rajeev Sharma, Rajnish Dhawan and Jai Prakash. He recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he submitted the case file to MHC(R) as he was transferred from PS Swaroop Nagar.
On a court question put as to why the specimen signature of the accused were not obtained and sent to FSL for verification with the signature on alleged documents, he replied so far as he remember the signatures of the alleged person on the relevant property papers was not dispute as to, if he had executed the same or not. Further, his signatures/genuinety of property documents having been executed by him has been endorsed/verified by the relevant witnesses also. Further, the entire investigation was not completed by him on account of his transfer to other place.
JYOTI Digitally signed by
JYOTI NAIN
NAIN Date: 2024.12.18
18:05:48 +0530
FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 15 of 18
On another court question put when he was assigned as IO in the present case and when he was transferred from the PS Swaroop Nagar he replied that since the registration of the case, the investigation was to him and in the first week of February, 2012, he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHCR.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
19. On 06.10.2021, accused in his statement u/s 294 CrPC admitted registration of FIR N. 46/10 as Ex. A1 and DD No. 13 A as Ex. A2. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 01.11.2021. Statement under section 313 Cr.PC
20. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was separately recorded. All incriminating material brought on record were put to the accused to which he denied the allegations made against him and deposed that it was a false and fabricated case prepared by the IO in connivance with the complainant. He deposed that he was an innocent person and have no concerned in any manner in this incident which was falsely narrated. Accused wants to lead evidence in his defence.
21. DW1 Irfan Ali deposed that he had come to the Court after receiving summons from the court. The plot in question was located in the same khasra i.e. 91 and he owned a plot in the same khasra. Being neighbour, he know about the present case. Joginder Rana bought the said plots in Khasra No. 91 from a lady and he had given the said plot to someone on rent initially, thereafter, he sold the said plots to three persons namely Jai Prakash, Rajneesh Dhwan and Rajeev Sharama, all three got the possession of the said plots and these three people also raised boundary wall on their respective plots. Thereafter, these same plots were sold to complainant and some people from Samaypur Badli came and started quarreling with the complainant and one of them was Pradeep Yadav. Pradeep further got the plot demarcated stating that it was his. Thereafter, suman had left the cattles in his plot. Whatever transpired FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 16 of 18 thereafter, he did not know but he just got to hear from somebody that Devender Rana had sold the plot.
He was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State.
22 I have heard the arguments addressed by the Learned APP for state and the ld. Counsel for the accused and have carefully perused the record.
23. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that state has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further stated that there are ocular and documentary evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accused sold the property in question to Rajnish Dhawan, Rajeev Sharma and Jai Prakash by preparing forged documents who in turn sold the same to the complainant.
24. Per contra it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that there is no evidence on record against the accused. That accused is the actual owner of the property in question. Prosecution has not brought any evidence to prove cheating or forgery by the accused.
25. In present case allegations against the accused are for offence u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC ie. Cheating and forgery of documents.. Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the IPC to constitute an offence. Under the aforesaid section, it is inbuilt that there has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of the said offence.
26. In the opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On one hand, the story of the prosecution is that one Pradeep Yadav i.e. PW8 is the actual owner of the property in question, on the other hand, prosecution has also examined PW9 i.e. Patwari from SDM office Alipur who deposed that the property belongs to the JYOTI Digitally signed by JYOTI NAIN NAIN Date: 2024.12.18 18:05:40 +0530 FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 17 of 18 gram sabha i.e. a govt land. PW9 also brought Khatoni pertaining to the property which is Ex PW9/A. PW12 i.e. the IO in his examination in chief stated that the property in question belonged to Gram Sabha, Village Ibrahimpur, Delhi whereas in his cross examination, has stated that Govind Ram was the owner of the property in question as per the revenue records. Other claimant to the property in question i.e. PW8 Pradeep Yadav has deposed that he had bought the property in question from one Govind Ram and that original documents of the property were given to the IO. IO has not filed the original documents on the record pertaining to the ownership over property in question by Pradeep Yadav. Further, it is the defence of the accused that he is the actual owner of the property in question. That he had purchased the same from one Shanti Devi who in turn had purchased it from Govind Ram. The documents pertaining to the aforesaid purchase are part of the record. Govind Ram and Shanti Devi have not been examined in this case. None of the documents has not been sent to FSL for examination in order to ascertain their authenticity. There is no evidence on record to prove that accused has forged the documents or has cheated the complainant.
27. In present case prosecution has failed to prove cheating or forgery by the accused as it did not prove the documents on record to be forged by the accused. In such circumstances it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Joginder Singh Rana is acquitted for offence under section 420/467/468/471 IPC.
28. File be consigned to record room.
29. This Judgment consists of 18 pages and all pages bear my signature.
JYOTI Digitally signed
by JYOTI NAIN
Date: 2024.12.18
Announced and dictated directly NAIN 18:05:30 +0530
into the computer in open court (JYOTI NAIN)
on 18th Day of December, 2024. JMFC-07/North District Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 46/10 State Vs. Joginder Singh Rana PS Swaroop Nagar Page NO. 18 of 18