Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Rati on 16 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU ASIWAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. Ram Rati
FIR No. 183/2001
Case No. 302025/2016
P.S. : SARAI ROHILLA
U/s 468/471/174A IPC
Date of institution of case : 06.10.2003
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 16.08.2022
Date of judgment : 16.08.2022
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : Unknown b) Offence complained of : U/s 468/471/174A IPC c) Name of complainant : Chaman Lal d) Name of accused , : Ram Rati her parentage : W/o Ram Swarth local & permanent residence R/o:- 2/74, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty f) Final order : Acquitted u/s 468/471 IPC Convicted u/s 174A IPC FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 1 BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on unknown date, time and place accused forged a GPA dated 11.07.1995 of property bearing no. 2/74A Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Delhi purportedly executed by the complainant Chaman Lal in the favour of accused and and consequently such forged GPA was used to execute SPA, Will, agreement to sell and purchase, affidavit, receipt and GPA all dated 18.11.2000 in favour of the son of accused namely Manoj Kumar Yadav and thus accused committed offence under section 468/471 IPC.
2. It is also alleged you that on 08.04.2002, accused was declared Proclaimed Offender as accused had failed to appear in the court in pursuance of the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. Accused surrendered on 17.05.2002 at Tis Hazari Court. Accordingly, she had committed an offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
3. On the basis of material filed along with the charge-sheet, charge u/s 468/471 IPC was framed against accused on 17.10.2012 and subsequently charge u/s 174A IPC was also framed against the accused on 06.06.2022 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses.
5. PW1 SI Prem Singh deposed that on 01.05.2001, he was posted at PS Sarai Rohilla as a Duty Officer from 12:00 pm to 08 am. At around 06:30 am, he received a rukka which was produced by SI Umesh Sharma. On the basis FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 2 of same, he registered the case FIR no. 183/01. Carbon copy of the FIR Ex.PW1/A. He made an endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Umesh Sharma for the purpose of investigation.
6. PW2 Rajinder Prasad, head clerk, ANC department Karol Bagh, Delhi deposed that he was posted at Karol Bagh Zone, MCD office as a head clerk. He had brought the summoned record of H.no.2/74A, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. The inspection form of the said property is Ex.PW2/A. Notice u/s 126 DMC Act is Ex.PW2/B. The decision of the inquiry officer is Ex.PW2/C. Letter written by Sh. Chaman Lal through Assessment Assessor and collection Karol Bagh Zone is Ex.PW2/D. The Action Demand and collection document is Ex.PW2/E. Call letter u/s 124(5) DMC Act issued in the name of Gopi Chand is Ex.PW2/F. Notice u/s 126 DMC Act is Ex.PW2/G. Action Taken Report is Ex.PW2/H. All the aforesaid original documents are seen and returned.
7. PW3 Ashok Singh deposed that he was a clerk attached with Mrs. V.S. Malik (Advocate and Notary Public) Old Court Kashmere Gate. IO came to the seat of Mrs. V.S. Malik and showed him three GPA attested by Mrs. V.S. Malik. Out of the aforesaid three GPAs, one GPA of year 2001 bears the signature of Mrs. V.S. Malik but the other two GPAs were not signed/attested by Mrs. V.S. Malik. When IO came, Mrs. V.S. Malik was not present, and only he was present. He could not tell the exact date of the aforesaid GPAs. He also could not tell by whom and in whose favour the said GPAs were executed. After FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 3 conducting the examination in chief of PW3 Sh. Ashok Singh, Ld. APP for the state cross examined the witness U/s 154 Evidence Act, wherein witness stated that he can not tell whether the dates of the aforesaid three GPAs were 17.08.2001, 31.07.1995 and 07.02.1996. Witness admitted that only one GPA bears the signature of Mrs. V.S. Malik but he could not tell the date of the said GPA. He worked as a clerk with Mrs. V.S. Malik since 1983 and he had seen her writing and signing and therefore deposed that he is capable of identifying her signatures.
8. PW4 Dr. Maharaj Singh Malik deposed that he was a practicing doctor. In the year about 1971, he has taken a clinic at 2/74A, Harijan Basti, Rohtak Road, Delhi and thereafter in the year of about 1977, he has also taken a clinic at Ram Nagar, Mandoli Road, near Durgapuri, Delhi. He had taken his aforesaid clinic at Harijan Basti on rent from one Prakashwati W/o Sh. Gopi Chand. He used to pay rent to the land lady Prakashwati and he had paid rent to her for about 15 years i.e. upto year 1986-1987. He used to sit in both of his aforesaid clinic. After the year 1986-87 Shri Pal brother of Chaman Lal used to collect rent from him as Chaman Lal was not maintaining good health. He has paid rent to Shri Pal/Chaman Lal uptill the year 2001. He has not paid rent to anybody else except Prakashwati, Shri Pal/Chaman Lal. After conducting the examination in chief of PW4 Dr. Maharaj Singh Malik, Ld. APP for the state put leading question to the witness and witness admitted that property no. 2/74A, Harijan Basti, Rohtak Road, Delhi was purchased by Lala Chaman Lal. Witness also admitted that he used to pay rent to Chaman Lal. Witness also stated voluntary that he was also paying rent to Shri Pal brother of Chaman Lal on behalf of Chaman Lal. Witness denied that in the year 1996 Ram Rati had shown photocopies of some documents to him stating that she had purchased the FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 4 same and therefore asked him to pay the rent henceforth to her. Witness denied that he paid rent to Ram Rati. Witness also denied that from the year 1996 to 2000 he had paid rent to Smt. Ram Rati. He was not able to recollect whether in the end of year 2000 Chaman Lal had given complaint against Ram Rati and in the year 2001 a criminal case of cheating and forgery was registered against Ram Rati. Witness also denied that he had verified records of house tax about the ownership of his aforesaid clinic at Harijan Basti and found Chaman Lal to be the owner of the same in the records of House Tax Department. Witness denied that he also made enquiries from Ram Rati about the ownership of aforesaid property at Harijan Basti. He had vacated the aforesaid clinic at Harijan Basti in the year 2001 and handed over the possession of the same to owner Shri Pal/Chaman Lal. He was not able to recollect whether at the time of handing over the possession of aforesaid clinic at Harijan Basti to owner, any document was executed between him and the owner. Witness also stated that he had shown the document i.e photocopy of Deed of Compromise available on the judicial record Mark X, executed between the witness and the owner Chaman Lal, having the signature and thumb impression of witness at point A and B. Witness had stated that he was not able to recollect the execution of the said document.
9. PW5 Mrs. V.S Malik, advocate, enrollment no. D-159/72, Chamber no. 142, Baba Gurcharan Singh Block Tis Hazari Delhi has deposed that on 31.01.2002 she was posted as a Notary public at Delhi, appointed by Delhi Administration. On that day, IO of the present case showed her one GPA executed between Chaman Lal and Ram Rati. The said GPA does not bear any Serial number. She deposed that, whenever any GPA was notarized it also bears FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 5 Notary number, application serial number and date. The aforesaid GPA does not bear any of the said details, that is why no record of the said GPA was available. The photocopy of the said GPA does not bear her signature and seal. She deposed that her signature and seal on the said GPA was forged. The photocopy of the said GPA is shown to the witness. Witness stated that the said GPA does not bear her signature and seal. The said GPA is identified as Mark A.
10. PW6 Sh. Ashok Singh had alrady deposed as PW3 on 10.08.2015, however inadvertently, he has been cross examined as PW6 on 30.09.2016 and 17.12.2018.
11. PW7 Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana UDC from office of sub-registrar-1 Kashmere Gate, Delhi brought the original summoned record i.e record of GPA dt. 08.11.2000 executed by accused Ram Rati in favour of Manoj Kumar Yadav Ex.PW7/A (OSR), SPA executed by Ram Rati in favour of Manoj Kumar Ex.PW7/B (OSR) and bill executed by Ram Rati in favour Manoj Kumar Ex.PW7/C (OSR).
12. PW8 Inspector S.K. Gaur deposed that on 03.07.2001, he was posted at PS Sarai Rohilla as SI. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him. he went through the case file. He conducted investigation in respect of photocopy of GPA allegedly executed by complainant namely Chaman Lal in favour of accused Ram Rati dt. 11.07.1995. He also conducted investigation with notary Mrs. V.S Malik and her clerk Ashok Kumar in connection with the seal and signature which were on the photocopy of the FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 6 GPA. He recorded their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also conducted investigation with stamp paper vendor Sh. S.K. Khanna in respect of stamp paper purchased in the name of complainant on 11.07.1995. Witness recorded his statement. He also verified record from house tax department Karol Bagh and found that house tax was paid in the name of complainant Chaman Lal. Notary Mrs. V.S. Malik denied her signature and seal on the aforementioned GPA dt. 11.07.1995. Stamp paper vendor stated that the stamp paper was purchased from her on 11.07.1995. He also conducted investigation in respect of DD no. 13 dt. 25.10.2000 PP Tis Hazari Court with respect to the missing forged GPA dt. 11.07.1995. He also conducted investigation with respect to GPA had executed by accused Ram Rati in favour of her son Manoj. It revealed that on 18.11.2000, accused Ram Rati had executed GPA in favour of her son namely Manoj Ex.PW7/A with respect to property bearing no. 2/74 A, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. He also visited sub-registrar office and found that GPA dt. 18.11.2000 was found registered with sub-registrar office Kashmere Gate. The aforementioned GPA Mark A dt. 11.07.1995 does not bear any notary. Accused did not join investigation, therefore he obtained NBWs against accused from the court and thereafter process u/s 82 Cr.P.C was executed against accused Ram Rati. On 12.02.2002, he was transferred, therefore he handed over the file to MHC(R) PS Sarai Rohilla.
13. PW9 Inspector Umesh Sharma deposed that on 01.05.2001, he was posted as an SI in PS Sarai Rohilla. At about 06.30 PM, he was handed over a complaint by Chaman Lal regarding cheating and forgery of the documents by his tenants Ramswarth, Ram Rati and Manoj Kumar. The complaint was marked by the SHO to him. Thereafter, he got the FIR registered in the present case by FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 7 making the endorsement Ex. PW-9A from point X to X1. After registration of the FIR, he obtained the photocopy of documents i.e. GPA of property 2/74 A, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Delhi, one NCR having DD No.13 dt. 25.10.2000 and one electricity bill of D.V.B. having no.3886778 from accused Ram Rati and seized the same by seizure memo Ex.PW-9/B. Thereafter he was transferred and case file was handed over to MHCR.
14. PW10 Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh deposed that on 13.02.2002, he was posted as SI at PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. On that day, the present case was marked to him for further investigation. On same day, he executed process u/s 82 Cr.P.C against accused Ram Rati at 02/74, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. Thereafter on 08.04.2002, accused Ram Rati was declared Proclaimed offender by the concerned court. Thereafter, on 27.04.2002, he prepared the challan and filed before the court. On 17.05.2002, accused Ram Rati surrendered before the court. He alongwith W/Ct. Sanjeeta and Ct. Bijender Singh came at the court and he moved an application for interrogation of accused Ram Rati Ex.PW10/A and same was allowed by the court. After her interrogation regarding the present case, he arrested accused Ram Rati vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He also got conducted her personal search through lady constable Sanjeeta and prepared personal search memo Ex.PW10/C. Accused also gave her disclosure statement Ex.PW10/D. He also took one day police remand with the permission of the court. Accused Ram Rati had disclosed that the forged GPA had been lost from her possession. Thereafter, he searched the forged GPA at Tis Hazari Court and at Harijan Basti, however the forged GPA was not recovered. Thereafter, he produced the accused before the court where she was sent to JC. Thereafter, he prepared the supplementary challan and filed FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 8 before the court.
15. All the prosecution witnesses were subjected to cross examination by Ld. defence counsel. The material aspects that appeared in cross- examination are discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
16. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. All incriminating facts was explained to accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused after understanding the same submitted she is totally innocent and submitted that wrong allegations have been levelled against her. The GPA dt. 11.07.1995 was duly executed by Chaman Lal in her favour in exchange of valuable consideration, however since the complainant found better price for his property, his intention turned malafide and therefore he lodged a false FIR against her. Accused submitted that it is a false case and planted case registered with the connivance of complainant and police official. Accused submitted that a settlement was also arrived between her and the complainant wherein the complainant returned her sale consideration to her and in return, she handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the complainant. She submits that such compromise/ settlement was oral and that the complainant also promised to withdraw the present case, however despite his promise he failed to withdraw the case.
17. However, accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, arguments of both parties were heard.
FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 9DECISION OF THE CASE AND REASONS THEREOF:
18. I have considered the material facts and circumstances of the case. Same are discussed in succeeding paras.
19. In this case, the accused has been charged for commission of offence u/s 468/471 IPC and as per the case of the prosecution, the accused forged the GPA dated 11.07.1995 Mark-A for the purpose of cheating and she fraudulently and dishonestly used the same as a genuine document.
For the sake of ready reference, both the relevant sections are being reproduced below:-
Section 468 Forgery for purpose of cheating:- 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 terms which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 471 Using as genuine a forged[ document or electronic record] 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].
20. To understand the scope and import of section 468 and 471 IPC, it is necessary to peruse the elements of section 470 IPC which defines forged document as a false document made by forgery.
FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 1021. Furthermore, the term "forgery" is defined in Section 463 as whoever makes any false documents 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 express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
22. The condition precedent for the offence u/s 468/471 IPC is forgery and the condition precedent for forgery is making of a false document. The making of false document is explained in Section 464 of IPC.
23. An analysis of section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides making of false documents into three categories.
1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation of otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.
3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 11 any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
24. In short, a person is said to have made a "false document", if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; (ii) where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority; (iii) he altered or tampered a document or he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.
25. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar and others (2009) 8 Supreme Court cases 751 as under:
That when a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 12
26. Furthermore, as required under most of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, there are two essential ingredients to commit the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. The first ingredient is the actus part which means that a person must have used a forged document as genuine and he must have done so fraudulently or dishonestly. The second ingredient, which constitutes mens-rea, is that the person using the forged document as genuine should either know or has reasons to believe that the document is forged. It is only when these two ingredients have been proved that it can be concluded that offence under Section 471 IPC has been committed
27. Now keeping the statutory requirements in mind, I shall assess if these requirements/ingredients have been proved by the prosecution in the facts of the present case for proving charges under section 468/471 IPC.
28. The case of the prosecution regarding alleged forgery committed by the accused and thereafter, use of the forged document by the accused is solely dependent upon the alleged forged GPA purported to be executed by the complainant in favour of accused Ram Rati in respect of property bearing no. 2/74A, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. However, the prosecution has failed to place on record the aforesaid original alleged forged document/GPA. On perusal of previous order-sheets of the present case, it is found that the ld. Predecessors had sought explanation from the concerned IOs with respect to non-filling of the original alleged forged GPA dated 11.07.1995. During the cross examination dated 02.08.2019 of PW-8 IO Inspector S.K. Gaur, deposed that the forged GPA dated 11.07.1995 was never FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 13 in possession of the complainant, he further deposed that he never even gave any notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to the accused to produce the alleged GPA, and neither did he ever issued any notice to the concerned Sub-registrar Kashmere Gate for production of documents under complaint. On perusal of record it is also found that the GPA dated 11.07.1995 was stated to be lost and that a DD no. 13 dated 25.10.2000 was lodged at police post Tis Hazari by the accused, however, it does not appear, that except for registering such DD, any other efforts were made by the Enquiry officer to check the veracity of such DD entry or to even make efforts to trace the missing document. On perusal of testimony of PW10 Inspector Arvind Pratap, it is found that after the arrest of the accused, attempts were made by him to trace the original forged GPA, however, the same could not be found. In entirety the most important piece of evidence remains 'not produced' during the trial.
29. Besides that, the complainant Chaman Lal also could not be examined, as he passed away before his evidence could be recorded. Therefore, neither the complaint of the complainant Chaman Lal nor the contents of his complaint were ever proved. In the absence of any proved forged document on record, the possibility of even rational thinking of convicting the accused persons for the offence related to forgery is non- existent. However, even in the absence of examination of complainant due to his death, any forensic evidence with respect to forged signatures of the complainant could have fortified the case of the prosecution. However there does not appear even an iota of effort during investigation on the part of the IOs to obtain contemporaneous admitted signatures of the complainant for forensic comparison with the photocopy of alleged forged GPA(Mark A), to even lend slightest possibility to prove the forgery.
FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 1430. To support its case prosecution has examined PW-3 Sh. Ashok Singh and PW-5 Ms. V.S. Malik. PW-5 who is stated to be the notary public who allegedly attested the alleged forged GPA Mark A, and PW-3 was her clerk at the relevant point of time. The testimony of PW-3 could not prove anything as he did not support the case of the prosecution, as the original of Mark A was never produced during trial. Furthermore, during the examination-in-chief of PW-5 she did depose that the GPA Mark A does not bear her signature or seal, however such witness was never cross examined as she passed away before her cross examination could be conducted. Therefore the evidentiary value of her testimony is not sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, PW-4 Dr. Maharaj Singh Malik who is stated to be the tenant in the property in question from the 1977 to 2001, has deposed that he used to pay rent with respect to the property bearing no. 2/74A, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Delhi to the complainant up till 2001 and that never during his tenancy any ownership right were exerted on him by the accused; and after vacation of premises the property was handed over to the complainant Chaman Lal. However this witness was examined by the State u/s 154 Indian evidence Act, as he did not disclose the entire facts as revealed by him during his previous statement. PW-4 was also confronted with document Mark X, which was a compromise deed executed between complainant Chaman Lal and him, allegedly having the signature and thumb impression of PW-4, however PW-4 failed to identify such document. All in all PW-4 though admitted the complainant as his landlord during the relevant period after execution of GPA dated 11.07.1995 Mark-A, however his testimony alone is not sufficient to prove that the GPA Mark-A is a forged document.
FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 1531. In totality, the GPA dated 11.07.1995 Mark-A is alleged to be a false document as defined u/s 464 IPC and it is alleged that the accused has made and forged the said GPA. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said GPA Mark-A bears the handwriting of the accused forging signatures of the complainant or that the said GPA was prepared by the accused.
32. Further the said GPA Mark-A allegedly bear the signatures of complainant Chaman Lal, however, the IO did not make any efforts to send the alleged copy of GPA to FSL for verification of its genuineness. Furthermore, it is come into the evidence of PW8 Inspector S.K. Gaur that he had investigated from the stamp paper vendor with respect to the stamp on the alleged forged GPA Mark A, however such stamp vendor if investigated has not been brought to witness stamp to support the claim of the prosecution.
33. The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts, however, neither the complainant who allegedly signed on the GPA Mark-A could be examined by the prosecution nor the said GPA/copy was sent to FSL for determining its genuineness. The factum of forgery cannot be said to have been proved on the basis of an testimony of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5.
34. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused made the false document as contemplated u/s 464 IPC which is the condition precedent for convicting the accused for the offence of forgery u/s 468 IPC.
FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 1635. Prosecution has also alleged that accused used the forged GPA Mark A as genuine for executing registered GPA, SPA and bill dated 08.11.2000 identified as Ex. PW-7/A, Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-7/C in favour of her son Manoj Kumar on the strength of forged GPA Mark A, and has thereby committed offence u/s 471 IPC. However, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove that GPA Mark-A as a forged document. As the GPA Mark-A has not been proved to be a forged document, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC.
36. Therefore, this court do not find accused Ram Rati guilty of offences U/s 468 and 471 IPC.
37. Furthermore, accused was also charged with the offence u/s 174A IPC, as she was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 08.04.2002 during investigation.
38. The accused lead no evidence whatsoever on record to disprove the case of the Prosecution that she failed to appear before the court on the specified time. Rather, from the testimony of PW-8 IO Inspector S.K Gaur and PW10 Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh, it is found that his statement as the process server of process u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C against the accused Ram Rati was recorded vide order dt. 08.04.2002 and consequently the present accused was declared proclaimed offender vide order on same day. It has been borne out that the accused failed to appear before the court after issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.PC against her and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 174A IPC and is accordingly convicted for the said offence.
FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 1739. To summaries it, Accused Ram Rati stands acquitted of charges U/s 468/471 IPC; however she is found guilty of offence U/s 174-A IPC and accordingly stands convicted.
40. Let the accused Ram Rati be heard on the point of sentence with respect to offence U/s 174 A IPC.
Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU ASIWAL
File be consigned to record room. ASIWAL Date:
2022.08.16
17:27:12 +0530
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (CHARU ASIWAL)
TODAY ON 16th AUGUST 2022 MM-04 (CENTRAL),
DELHI
FIR No. 183/2001 State Vs. Ram Rati Page No. 18