Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajeev Kumar vs State Of West Bengal on 9 November, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CNR NO.: DLWT01- 009022-2019
Criminal Revision No. 410/2019
In the matter of :
Sh. Rajeev Kumar
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand
R/o A-240, Sudershan Park,
New Delhi-110 015. .... Revisionist/Petitioner
v.
The State
Govt.of NCT of Delhi ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 07.11.2019
Date of reserving order : 31.10.2022
Date of pronouncement : 09.11.2022
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under sec-
tion 397 Cr.P.C by the revisionist/petitioner, namely Rajeev Kumar Garg against the order on charge dated 05.08.2019 (hereinafter re- ferred to as the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM-04, West Dis- trict (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in the case FIR no. 159/13, PS Moti Nagar, titled as State v. Rajeev Kumar Garg & others, whereby the petitioner/revisionist was charged for the of- fences punishable under sections 420 IPC, 120B IPC and under sections 467/468/471/34 IPC.
Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 2
2. It is the case of the revisionist/petitioner as per the revision petition that the ld. Trial Court had framed charges against the peti- tioner without appreciating the material on record and without ap- preciating that police was in connivance with the complainant of the case. The ld. Trial Court had further failed to take into account that the alleged offences were not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of PS Moti Bagh. It further failed to take into consider- ation that even the complainant was not the owner of the property in dispute and was a mere trespasser. The property in dispute was originally allotted in favour of one Lakhi Ram. The complainant had also admitted that he came into possession of the property only with the permission of said Lakhi Ram. Thus, the complainant was also in possession as a licencee only and nothing more. The com- plainant further concealed that Lakhi Ram lodged complaint against the complainant with the department. Further a settlement was entered into between the petitioner and co-accused persons Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand in a matter u/s 138 of N.I.Act in the year 2013.
3. It is further the case of the petitioner that the complainant had neither agitated before the Court of ld.ARC that the documents were forged nor the ld. ARC took note of the same. The com- plainant instead of moving an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. before the Court of ld. ARC, had preferred to lodge the present complaint on which FIR no. 159/2013 was registered.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner/revisionist as per the re-
vision petition that even if the prosecution's story is taken to be true and forgery is actually committed, then it had been committed by Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 3 co-accused persons namely Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand and not by the petitioner. The petitioner had believed the representation of co-accused persons namely Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand that they were the owners of property in dispute and the said co-accused persons had also given previous chain of the documents pertaining to the property in dispute to the petitioner. Further, a notice dated 11.11.2010 was served by him upon the complainant asking him to vacate the property in dispute i.e. property bearing no. C-52, Karam Pura, Delhi before filing the case by him before the Court of ld. ARC.
5. It is further the case of the revisionist/petitioner as per the re-
vision petition that the complainant had not got the alleged forged documents declared forged and fabricated from the competent Court of law and therefore, the ld. Trial Court had no power to de- clare the documents as forged or null & void. The ld. Trial Court in the absence of the power of the Civil Court is incompetent to de- clare the alleged documents as forged and fabricated and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be discharged. Further, it had come in the investigation of the State itself that though it is stated by the first IO that co-accused Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand had filed com- plaints on 30.06.2012 and 02.07.2012, however, the second IO had stated in the charge-sheet that the said complaints were found nowhere in the record of police station. The petitioner had been roped in the present case only to teach him a lesson as he had filed complaint against IO Gulshan with the concerned DCP much prior to the registration of the present FIR. The petitioner had no motive Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 4 to commit the alleged offence and there is no prima-facie evidence against him.
6. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 05.08.2019 be set aside, the revision petition be allowed and the revisionist/pe- titioner be discharged from the case.
7. Trial Court record (TCR) was summoned and perused.
8. I have heard the arguments as advanced by Ld. counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the impugned order, the TCR and the entire ma- terial available on record.
9. Under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court situated within his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the reg- ularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court.
10. The Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.08.2019 had charged the revisionist/petitioner for the offences punishable under section 420 IPC, under section 120B IPC and under sections 467/468/471/34 IPC. Co-accused persons namely Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand were also charged for the offences under section 120B IPC and under sections 467/468/471/34 IPC.
11. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases reported as Kanti Bhadra Shah vs State of West Bengal, 2000 Crl. L. J 746 and Omwati vs State through Delhi Adminis-
Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 5 tration, 2001 (2) crimes 59 that at the stage of framing of charge the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged as it would amount to pre-mature appreciation of evidence.
12. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as B.C.Upreti & Anr. v. State and Anr. on 16.07.2015 that it is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charges, no roving enquiry is to be made nor the pros and cons of the materials could be weighed in detail as it would tantamount to a mini trial and such is not in the scheme of the code. The reason for this is that the pros- ecution ought to be allowed to bring its evidence at the trial and the case ought not to be shut out at the threshold when there is reason- able material for holding trial.
13. Perusal of the final report/charge-sheet reveals that it was complained by the complainant that he was the resident of property bearing no. C-52, 1st & 2nd floor, Karampura, Delhi and resided there for the last 38 years. He had taken the said property from one Sh. Lakhi Ram and had paid rent directly to Central Public Works Department, Govt. of India. The property was one out of 4500 dwelling units built by the Delhi Administration under an Industrial Housing Scheme. He paid regular house tax to MCD, had bank ac- count, ration card and gas connection from the said address. He had also submitted undertaking to the Labour department as re- quired by them in the prescribed format. On 08.06.2012, however, accused Rajeev Garg came to the house and claimed himself as the owner thereof and the complainant was compelled to vacate the premises then and there as per some Court's order. He could not Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 6 even take out all his belongings and the premises were handed over to Rajeev Garg who claimed to have purchased the property. Thereafter, he came to know that Rajeev Garg had filed an Eviction petition bearing no. 102/2011 in the Court of Sh. Devender Kumar, ld. CCJ cum ARC, West on the basis of forged documents in order to procure the property of the complainant and had obtained an ex- parte order from the Court. The complainant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. He came to know upon the re- ceipt of certified copies that accused Rajeev Garg in connivance with two other persons unknown to the complainant had made false documents of property bearing no. C-52, 1st Floor and 2nd Floor, Karampura, Delhi in order to illegally grab the property of the complainant, that is, Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will and receipt, all dated 12.04.2010 allegedly executed by Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand in favour of Rajeev Garg. Accused Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand were never the owners of the said property and had no right, title or interest therein. Furthermore, as per receipt, the consideration was paid in cash and possession was given at the time of execution. The said documents were notarized. The accused disposed the complainant from the property in question on the basis of forged and false documents and further induced the Court of ld. CCJ cum ARC, West to pass an ex-parte Judgment in their favour. On the basis of complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered under sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.
14. It is the case of the State as per final report that in investiga-
tion, it was found that property no. C-52, Karampura, New Delhi was allotted to one Lakhi Ram s/o Sh. Devi Sahai vide letter no.
Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 7 F.40(21)/1301 dated 27.02.1975. An inspection was conducted by the Labour department on 22.04.1982 and it was found that com- plainant Ganpat Rai alongwith his family was residing on the said address. The documents furnished by accused Rajeev Garg in the Civil suit before the Court of Sh. Devender Kumar, ld. CCJ cum ARC, West included GPA, Agreement to Sell, Deed, Will, Receipt of the said property executed by Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand in favour of Rajeev Garg, however, no complete chain was filed be- fore the Court.
15. During investigation, it was stated by co-accused persons Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand that they had never sold or pur- chased the said property from or to anybody and have never resided in the said property. Rajeev Garg was having their signed stamp papers, documents and cheques and had misused the same despite the fact that they were asking for their return. When Rajeev Garg told them that the documents had been misplaced, they got lodged missing report for information to the police and to avoid misuse of these documents, vide letters dated 30.06.2012 and 02.07.2012 ad- dressed to PS Moti Nagar. Rajeev Garg had also filed cases against them under section 138 of N.I.Act, which were decided in Febru- ary, 2013 wherein statement of Rajeev Garg was recorded that he will not misuse the stamp papers, signed blank papers and cheques of Gaurav Anand.
16. Accused Rajeev Garg in his statement stated that documents of the property were lost somewhere and regarding the missing of documents, he had already lodged NCR no.1116/2012 dated Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 8 05.07.2022. The documents furnished before the Court of ld. ARC, West were procured with the permission of the Court and co-ac- cused Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand admitted their signatures and thumb impression on the said forged documents. Still, for the purpose of clarification, their specimen signatures alongwith the al- leged forged documents were deposited at FSL and it was opined by the FSL that the said forged documents contained the signatures of Gaurav Anand, Rakesh Kumar Garg and Gautam Bhatia. Com- plete file of the property was received from Assistant Housing Commissioner.
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 12.11.2013 directed ac-
cused Rajeev Kumar Garg to handover keys of the property.
18. It was further revealed during investigation that the property in question was allotted to Lakhi Ram as a licencee, being indus- trial worker/employee of Popular Hosiery Mills, on 27.02.1975. In 1977, it was intimated by Popular Hosiery Mills to the office of As- sistant Housing Commissioner that Lakhi Ram had left the job w.e.f. 17.03.1977 and accordingly, on 25.05.1977, a notice for va- cation of quarter was issued to Lakhi Ram which was received by Ganpat Rai on 28.05.1977 and then the allotment of quarter was canceled vide order dated 07.11.1977. A request was submitted be- fore the Court of ADM, State Officer for eviction of quarter and or- der of eviction was also passed by the then ADM on 07.02.1978. Inspection was carried out by the labour Department in the year 1982 and it was revealed that Ganpat Rai alongwith his family was still residing there.
Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 9
19. It was further revealed in the inquiry conducted by the Labour Department that there was no blood relation between Gan- pat Rai and Lakhi Ram. Meanwhile, Ganpat Rai also submitted the requisite performa and other documents with the office of the Labour Department for allotment of quarter in his name and office note was made that since the allotment had been canceled from the name of Lakhi Ram and eviction orders had been passed by the State Officer/ADM, therefore, if approved, the office may process the case for ownership under "New Policy" in favour of Ganpat Rai whenever the same is implemented and till then the file be kept pending.
20. It is further stated in the charge-sheet that during investiga-
tion, whereabouts of Lakhi Ram were traced and it was found that he had expired in the year 1992 and his son does not know any- thing about any quarter in Delhi and further stated that Lakhi Ram had not executed any document while living in the village.
21. It had further come in investigation that Ganpat Rai/com-
plainant was the brother-in-law of the brother-in-law of Murari Lal, who was the owner of Popular Hosiery Mills. The possession of the quarter was handed over by Lakhi Ram to Ganpat Rai and the monthly rent was given by Ganpat Rai.
22. Thus, it is the case of the State that present revisionist/peti-
tioner/accused Rajeev Kumar Garg alongwith co-accused persons Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand hatched a criminal conspiracy to grab the property in question. When the possession of the property was taken by petitioner Rajeev Kumar Garg on 12.06.2022, after Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 10 15-20 days, all the accused persons had stated that they had lodged reports/NCRs regarding missing of stamp papers, cheques etc. on dated 30.06.2012, 02.07.2012 and 05.07.2012 and these reports were lodged within a period of one week after taking possession of the property in dispute. Furthermore, even the records regarding re- ceipt of applications dated 30.06.2012 and 02.07.2012 is not avail- able at PS Moti Nagar. It is further stated in the final report that as per petitioner, the chain of documents of the property in question were lost only on 05.07.2022, however, these documents were not filed by the petitioner before the Civil Court where suit for eviction was filed. It is the case of the State that no previous chain of docu- ments existed and therefore, the same was not filed before the Court of ld. ARC. Petitioner Rajeev Kumar Garg on the basis of forged documents, filed eviction petition and thereafter, obtained possession.
23. Thus, perusal of the final report alongwith documents at-
tached reveal that prima-facie offences of cheating under section 420 IPC, criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC and offence of forgery of valuable security under section 467 IPC, forgery for the purpose of cheating under section 468 IPC and using as genuine forged documents under section 471 IPC, are all made out against the petitioner/revisionist as the petitioner/revisionist in connivance with co-accused persons namely Gaurav Anand and Nisha Anand had forged documents of property bearing no.C-52, Karampura, Delhi and had filed those forged documents before the Court of ld. ARC and had obtained an ex-parte decree and consequent eviction of complainant from the said property despite the fact that neither Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 11 Gaurav Anand nor Nisha Anand nor petitioner Rajeev Garg had any locus in the said property or any right, title or interest in the said property. The said property belonged to Central Public Works De- partment/Municipal Corporation of Delhi and was built under sub- sidized Industrial Housing Scheme, Karampura, New Delhi. The locus of the complainant could be of a trespasser or a permissive user however, that is not the subject matter of the present revision. As per the investigation conducted, the complainant was in posses- sion and on the basis of eviction order, which was procured from the Court by the revisionist on the basis of false, forged and fabri- cated documents, the complainant was compelled to vacate prop- erty in question. The said property was restored to the complainant after intervention of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the revi- sionist. As per the FSL report as well, the signatures of accused Gaurav Anand and present revisionist/petitioner Rajeev Kumar Garg are on the alleged forged documents on the strength of which eviction order was procured. Thus, there is no infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the order of the ld. Trial Court and it is held that ld. Trial Court had correctly charged the present revisionist/peti- tioner for the offences punishable under sections 420 IPC, 120B IPC and under sections 467/468/471/34 IPC.
24. The contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the locus of the complainant was of mere trespasser, that petitioner had been falsely and maliciously implicated in the present matter as he had lodged a complaint against the investigating officer, that com- plainant and investigating agency are hand in gloves, that he is in- nocent and forgery if any, had been committed by co-accused per-
Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 12 sons are all are matter of trial and could not be considered at the stage of charge.
25. At the stage of charge, the Court is only required to see whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution or not and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons or not. In the present case, in view of the final re- port and the documents collected by the police during investiga- tion, there are sufficient grounds to proceed further with trial and to frame charge against the petitioner.
26. In view of the above discussions and findings, it is held that there is no material irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the im- pugned order and the order is correct, proper and in accordance with law. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed being de- void of merits.
27. The TCR be sent back along with the copy of this order to the Ld. Trial Court.
28. The file of this revision case be consigned to record room af-
Digitally
ter due compliance. NEHA
signed by
NEHA
PALIWAL
PALIWAL SHARMA
Pronounced in the open SHARMA Date:
2022.11.09
15:45:55 -0500
Court on 09.11.2022 (Neha Paliwal Sharma)
Additional Sessions Judge -05
(West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
It is certified that this Order contains 12 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Neha Paliwal Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge -05 (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State 13 Criminal Revision No.410/2019 Rajeev Kumar v. State