Delhi District Court
Smt. Chandrawali vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE05, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 02/2017
CNR No. DLSW010101922016
Smt. Chandrawali,
W/o Sh. Ishwar Chand Yadav,
R/o Qtr No. 198, PhaseI,
Police Colony, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi110052
Through her S.P.A.
Sh. Ishwar Chand Yadav .....Revisionist
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Through S.H.O.
P.S. Palam Village,
New Delhi110045
2. Manish Bhardwaj
S/o Sh. Balkishan Bhardwaj,
R/o 554, Village Samalkha,
New Delhi.
3. Omvir Singh
S/o Sh. Phool Singh,
R/o RZG215, Raj NagarII,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi110045 .....Respondents
CR no. 02/2017 CNR No. DLSW010101922016 Chandrawali Vs State & Others Page 1 of 8
Revision under section 397 Cr.P.C. against order dated 02.08.2016
whereby the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
was dismissed by Magisterial Court
Date of Institution : 02.01.2017
Arguments heard on : 04.08.2018
Date of Judgment : 24.08.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Revisionist/complainant has filed the revision petition under section 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) against impugned order dated 02.08.2016 of Court of Sh. Rohit Gulia, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate01 (South West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. I have heard the revisionist through Sh. Partap Singh, respondent no.1 through Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld Additional PP for the State, respondent no.2 through Sh. Dwapayan Gupta, Ld. Proxy Counsel and respondent no.3. I have perused the record of revision and of Trial Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions put CR no. 02/2017 CNR No. DLSW010101922016 Chandrawali Vs State & Others Page 2 of 8 forth.
3. Revision petition rests on the premise laid by revisionist that the order of Ld. Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises; passed in mechanical manner. It is argued that the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without any sufficient reasons. It is argued that the Trial Court had no chance to consider that the original documents are within the reach of the accused persons and only the accused persons can produce the documents. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that respondents no. 2 and 3 have fabricated the documents with the intention of cheating and are unauthorizedly occupying the space of revisionist. It is further argued that police in its report has mentioned having received the complaint but stated that the matter relates to monetary transaction hence the same is dispute of civil nature. It is further argued that FSL report can be obtained after seizing the original documents from the accused persons.
4. Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no.1 and Ld. Proxy counsel for respondent no.2 argued that there is no CR no. 02/2017 CNR No. DLSW010101922016 Chandrawali Vs State & Others Page 3 of 8 illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court and prayed that the revision petition be dismissed.
5. Revisionist had preferred the complaint under section 156(3) read with section 190 Cr.P.C. against the respondent no.2 and 3 arraigning them as accused for the offences under sections 415/419/420/468/471/120B/34 IPC wherein revisionist/complainant in said complaint interalia averred that respondent/accused Omvir Singh started parking his car in the parking of flats at plot no. RZH641, Gali No. 16, H Block, Raj Nagar, PartII, Palam Colony, Delhi110045, then husband of revisionist/complainant requested respondent/accused Manish Bhardwaj to remove the car of respondent/accused Omvir Singh but these respondents pretended initially that they shall remove car after sale of flats but later even despite sale of the flats of respondent/accused Manish Bhardwaj, respondent/accused Omvir Singh continued parking the car thereof and after sometime, respondent/accused Omvir Singh produced the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2012 purported to have been executed between respondent Omvir Singh and respondent Manish CR no. 02/2017 CNR No. DLSW010101922016 Chandrawali Vs State & Others Page 4 of 8 Bhardwaj with the narration that respondent Omvir Singh has purchased the parking of flat no. 201 for Rs.1 lac from respondent Manish Bhardwaj. It is the contention of the revisionist/complainant that aforesaid agreement to sell had been forged, fabricated by these respondents to usurp the parking space of revisionist/complainant. Copy of such agreement to sell between the respondents/accused has been placed on record, which is an unregistered agreement to sell on Rs.50/ non judicial stamp paper, having no witnesses but containing purported signatures of these arraigned respondents/accused.
6. Section 463 in Chapter XVIII of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) embodies the definition of forgery and in terms thereof the basic elements of forgery are (1) making of false documents or part of and (2) such making should be with the intention to cause damage or injury to
(i) public, (ii) any person; or (iii) to support any claim or title; or (iv) to cause any person to part with property; or (v) to enter into an express or an implied contract with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
CR no. 02/2017 CNR No. DLSW010101922016 Chandrawali Vs State & Others Page 5 of 8
7. Making of false document is defined in section 464 IPC. A person is said to make a false document - (1) if such person makes or executes a document or its part with intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of it was made or executed by the person whom he knew that it was not so made or signed by him; or (2) if one without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made; or (3) if one dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason or deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
8. Nothing of the sort as abovesaid is contained in the allegations which would accordingly, prima facie make agreement to sell of car parking in question to be a false document as per the ingredients elicited above of section 464 of IPC to come in the ambit of forgery defined in section 463 IPC elicited above. False recitals in a document per se will CR no. 02/2017 CNR No. DLSW010101922016 Chandrawali Vs State & Others Page 6 of 8 not make it a forged document.
9. In the case of Suresh Chand Jain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Another 2001 (1) C.C. Cases (SC) 83, it had been held by Apex Court that the Magisterial Court had both the options viz (1) to order investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and (2) in case it does not do so, then to examine the complainant on Oath and proceed further in the matter as per the procedure laid in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which is there in Chapters XIX and Chapter XX. Impugned order also embodies the fact of the complainant to be in the knowledge of the material facts as to the identity of the accused and the offence complained. The revisionist could examine the witnesses listed in the list of witnesses filed with the complaint or any other witness(es), deemed necessary and essential for proving the case, such witness (es) can be summoned by the complainant, for which there is no impediment in his way.
10. In the fact of the matter, accordingly, I find no irregularity, nor illegality nor impropriety in the impugned order of Trial Court for CR no. 02/2017 CNR No. DLSW010101922016 Chandrawali Vs State & Others Page 7 of 8 dismissing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
11. Finding the revision petition devoid of merits, it is dismissed.
12. Trial court record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back to concerned Magisterial Court. File of revision petition be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by GURVINDER PAL GURVINDER SINGH PAL SINGH Date: 2018.08.24 11:22:26 +0530 Announced in the open court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) th on date 24 August, 2018 ASJ05/SW/DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI (sc) CR no. 02/2017 CNR No. DLSW010101922016 Chandrawali Vs State & Others Page 8 of 8