State vs Naseem Ahmed on 13 January, 2026

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Naseem Ahmed on 13 January, 2026

                                          1

                IN THE COURT OF SAURABH GOYAL:
     JMFC- 01, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS: DELHI




State Vs.     : Naseem Ahmad & Ors.
FIR No        : 35/2016
U/s           : 420/468/471/34 IPC
P.S.          : PALAM VILLAGE
CNR No.        : DLSW020040772016
1. Criminal Case No.                          :   426917/2016
2. Date of commission of offence              :   During the year 2014 to 2015
3. Date of institution of the case            :   31.03.2016
4. Name of the complainant                    :   State
5. Name of accused & parentage                :   (1) Naseem Ahmad S/o Sh. Aas
                                                  Mohd. (Proceedings abated
                                                  vide order dated 24.01.2019)
                                                  (2) Wasim Ahmad S/o Sh. Aas
                                                  Mohd.
6. Offence complained or proved               :   U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC

7. Plea of the accused                        :   Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved           :   22.12.2025
9. Final order                                :   Convicted U/s 420/471 IPC
                                                  Acquitted U/s 468 IPC
10. Date of final order                       :   13.01.2026
                                     JUDGMENT

1. The accused persons namely Naseem Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad are FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

facing trial for commission of offence U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that during the year 2014-2015, both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention cheated the complainant namely Sh. Javed Akhtar along with other complainants on the pretext of providing them jobs through Ashiyana Placement & Travel Services, Palam Extension, Ramphal Chowk, Sector 7 , Dwarka, in different public and private sector companies and dishonestly induced them to pay money in lieu of the same and also accused Naseem Ahmad forged the appointment letter of Wipro Company and used the same as genuine despite having knowledge that the same is forged and handed over the same to the complainant Sh. Javed Akhtar with the intention to cheat him. The criminal law was set into motion by registration of FIR against the accused persons upon the complaint of the complainant and investigation into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused persons for the alleged offences.

2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the copies of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.

3. Accordingly, after hearing the arguments on charge, the charge for commission of offence U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons namely Naseem Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad vide order dated 24.06.2016. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording of prosecution evidence.

4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led. However, in the present case vide order dated 04.01.2017, the accused Naseem was declared as Proclaimed FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Offender vide order dated 04.01.2017, however, when the matter was listed for prosecution evidence, the accused Naseem Ahmad was reported to have been expired and thus, the present case proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 24.01.2019.

5. The proceedings U/S 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused Wasim Ahmad admitted the factum of registration of FSL report NO. 216/D2392 dated 29.09.2016 as Ex. P1 (colly) on 27.06.2025, pursuant to such admission made by accused of this document.

6. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC has been proved beyond doubt and thus, the accused being held guilty and convicted.

7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials and forgery of documents in question have not been proved to have been used as genuine at any public place. The signatures of Accused persons were not present upon any of the documents in question, thus, there is no evidence against them. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, the accused be acquitted.

8. Arguments heard and evidence perused.

9. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses in order to substantiate the allegations against the accused.

10. PW-1 Sh. Javed Akhtar deposed that in the month of November, 2013, he was searching for job in Google and there was a link in the name of Ashiyana Placement and Travel Service Pvt. Ltd., Palam Ext, Ramphal Chowk, Sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi regarding the providing of job to persons who were looking for job, thus, he contacted on the mobile number which was appearing in the link. He further deposed that he talked with one Alka who was working as a receptionist in the said agency who told him to come in the office and then they would have a talk regarding the job in detail. He further deposed that after a week, he visited said agency and met with Naseem Ahmed (Proceedings against him already abated) who told him that he had contacts with HRs of different companies and he provide jobs in different companies and that in lieu of providing job, he charges money from the candidateş. He further deposed that Naseem Ahmad also disclosed about the charges of providing jobs in different companies and informed him, he will get a job of Software Developer Trainee Engineer for him in WIPRO Technologies and he will charge Rs. 1,10,000/- from him. He further deposed that on 30.01.2014, Naseem Ahmed told him to come in the office of WIPRO Technologies situated at Plot No. 480-481, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurgaon for interview regarding job of Software Developer Trainee Engineer and he went there and met with Naseem who was present outside the building of WIPRO. He further deposed that accused Naseem was accompanied by one more person, namely, FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Deepak (he can identify Deepak if produced before him) and that he was told by Naseem Ahmed to bring his original certificates, therefore, he had gone there with his original certificates. He further deposed that accused Naseem Ahmed informed him that before interview, he had to deposit his original certificates with him, thus, he handed over his original certificates to Naseem Ahmed and he along with Deepak instructed him to go inside to meet Mr. Gupta in HR Department who will take his interview. He further deposed that he went inside the building and two persons, one of them was Mr. Gupta (he can identify Mr. Gupta if produced before him) took his interview in an office, thereafter, Mr. Gupta told him that he was selected and took his signatures on the copy of offer letter. He further deposed that when he requested Mr. Gupta to give him a copy of offer letter, he told him that as the payment of money regarding thẹ job was pending and refused to give him the offer letter and that Mr. Gupta further told him to make the payment of money to NaseemAhmed and Naseem Ahmed will hand over the offer letter to him after the payment. He further deposed that thereafter, he came out and met with Naseem Ahmed and Deepak who were standing at some distance from the gate of WIPRO Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and he told him about his conversation with Mr. Gupta and Naseem Ahmed told him to hand over the money and sent Deepak towards the gate of the company and instructed him to bring the offer letter. He further deposed that said Deepak went to the gate of the company and brought one envelope and showed him the offer letter of the WIPRO company regarding his selection and handed over the offer letter to Naseem Ahmed. He further deposed that Naseem talked with Mr. Gupta on the phone and told him that offer letter was received by FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

him and further told that after receiving the money, he will give the offer letter to him (witness). He further deposed that he withdrew Rs. 60,000/- from his bank accounts from SBI and Kotak Mahindra Bank through ATM and handed over the said amount to Naseem Ahmed and then Naseem Ahmed handed over to him the offer letter of WIPRO regarding his selection but did not return his original certificates and Naseem Ahmad told him that as there was balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- yet to be given by him, he will return his original certificates only after receiving the balance amount. He further deposed that on next day, he went to the office of Naseem Ahmed at Ramphal Chowk, Sector-7, Dwarka as he waş calling him continuously since morning and he paid him the bạlancę amount of Rs. 50,000/- and he returned his original documents. He further deposed that in the offer letter, his joining date was 13.02.2014, and he went to the office of WIPRO Technologies, Greater Noida and met with the HR who informed him that WIPRO Technologies had never issued any such offer letter and also informed him that the offer letter which he was having was forged and fabricated. He further deposed that he was in a state of shock and from the office of HR, he made call to Naseem Ahmed who told him that he will talk to HR and told him to come back from the office, thereafter, he returned to his home. He further deposed that on next day, he called Naseem Ahmed telephonically who informed him that he was contacting the HR but he is unable to get the details. He further deposed that thereafter, he used to make call to Naseem Ahmed but he did not pick his phone and once when Naseem Ahmad picked his call and he told him to return his money and Naseem Ahmad told him that he had given the money to HR and has no money to pay him FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

and he assured him that he will return his money after arranging from his sources,however, even thereafter, he did not return his money and one day, he called him telephonically and told him that he will file police complaint against him for cheating him, thereafter, he filed complaints against Naseem for cheating him, copies of which are with him and that he can produce the copies of complaints and thereafter, Naseem returned Rs. 20,000/- to him and when he did not return balance money of Rs.90,000/-, in the month of June, 2015, he had lodged online complaint on the portal of Delhi Police and on 15.07.2015, he was called in the PS by SI Sandeep. He correctly identified the Accused Wasim and stated that he is brother of accused Naseem came in the PS with Kalpana, who was employee in Ashiyana Placement Agency. He further deposed that Kalpana gave her written assurance on behalf of accused Naseemn to return his money till 30.08.2015 and that he only received Rs. 25,000/- which was deposited in his bank account by Naseem Ahmed and Wasim Ahmed and when he did not get his money, he again made complaint online and he was called in the PS Palam Village on 23.01.2016 and his statement was recorded by SI Sandeep i.e. Ex.PW1/A and he had also handed over offer letter of WIPRO i.e. Mark A, his bank statements i.e. Mark B and copy of written statement by Kalpna i.e. Mark C to SI Sandeep on 30.01.2016 which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that Accused Wasim was also working with Naseem in placement agency and he used to visit PS on behalf of Naseem.

11. PW-2 Deepali Gautam who deposed that in the year 2015, his son Gaurav Gautam was searching for job and during the online search, they came to know FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

about one Ashiana Placement Travel Agency in Ramphal Chowk, Palam who had advertised regarding the providing of job in their site, thereafter, she alongwith her son visited the office of Ashiana Placement Agency at Ramphal Chowk where accused Waseem Ahmad and his brother Naseem Ahmad were present and they met them and enquired from them about the cabin crew job for his son Gaurav Gautam and they told them that they will provide the job of cabin crew for his son in Jet Airways and he has to appear for interview and has demanded Rs. 3,50,000/- in total for providing the job. She further deposed that Accused Waseem Ahmad and Naseem Ahmad also told them to deposit Rs. 50,000/- first and thereafter, within a week interview will be conducted and thus, they gave them Rs. 50,000/- in cash after one day in their office and one receipt was issued to them for the said amount. She further deposed that they waited for few weeks but her son was not called for any interview, thus, they visited few times to the office of accused persons but the same was locked and on one day accused Waseem Ahmad met them in the office and they demanded back their money who refused to pay the same by saying he was unable to pay the amount taken from them and there were heated arguments between them and they took the key of his motorcycle and told him that they will realize their money by selling his bike and thereafter, Waseem Ahmad called his father telephonically and his father assured them on telephone that he will return their money, thereafter, they went to their house. She further deposed that thereafter, they contacted 2-3 times telephonically to the father of Waseem Ahmad and he had given RS. 15,000/- to them and after some days, they again visited the office and met with Naseem who had opened the office at that FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

time and they had talked with him and told him that neither he provided job to his son nor he returned the remaining amount on this accused Naseem told them that at that time he was not having money but he assured them that he will get a job for her son and also told them to give Rs. 15,000/- to him which was paid by his father and had assured them that he will return the whole amount of Rs. 50,000/-, if he is unable to provide the job. She further deposed that thereafter, accused Naseem Ahmad sent her son for the interview of Cabin Crew in Jet Airways but her son did not get job, thereafter, they visited the office of Naseem Ahmad and told him that his son did not get the job of Cabin Crew despite his assurance and he told them that he was having a bad time and he will return their money but he did not return their money. She further deposed that thereafter, they went to his office and took the articles like laptop and mobile phone so as to pressurize him and thereafter, when the father of accused Naseem Ahmad again assured them that he will return their money and on his assurance, they returned the laptop and mobile phone to Naseem Ahmad. She further deposed that they did not get any money from father of Naseem Ahmad as he has refused to return the same by saying that he has not given any guarantee to return the money and after sometime they again contacted the father of Naseem Ahmad, he told them that a case was registered by the police against Naseem Ahmad and told them to go to the police station. She further deposed that they went to the PS and she had given the receipt of Rs. 50,000/-, to the police which was seized by the police through seizure memo Ex. PW2/A and Receipt is Ex.PW2/B. He correctly identified the accused Waseem Ahmad in the Court today.

FIR No. 35/2016

St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

12. PW-3 Ms. Selina Suman deposed that in year 2015, she was residing at Laxmi Nagar in Delhi and she had applied for jobs on various job portals and on 09.07.2015, she received a call from Ashiana Placement and Travel Pvt Ltd Company that they will provide a job in DMRC to her and thus, she visited office of said company on 11.07.2015 at G-40, Palam Extension, Sector 7, Dwarka, Delhi along with her brother and friend Swati. She further deposed that her friend Swati was also assured the job in DMRC as she had also applied for job on job portal and they met accused Wasim Ahmad (witness correctly identified accused Wasim Ahmad in the court) and he informed them that the company belongs to his brother and he looks after the affairs of company. She further deposed that in the office there was one person namely Gautam and sister-in-law (bhabhi) of accused Wasim namely Kalpana and when they inquired about the job in DMRC, accused Wasim told them that DMRC recruits through their firm and when candidate is selected in DMRC, they get commission from DMRC. She further deposed that accused Wasim further told them that they had to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- for job in DMRC and when they refused by saying that they cannot pay such hefty amount and they were about to leave the office, accused Wasim told them that if they cannot pay Rs. 1.5 lacs then they can pay Rs. 70,000/- tor the job and they will get job on DMRC. She further submits that her brother paid Rs. 17,000/- on the same day and accused Wasim Ahmad issued a receipt for the same and that the Accused Wasim told her that her interview will be conducted on 16.07.2015 and rest of the payment has to be paid on that day after interview. She further deposed that One agreement of terms and conditions was also prepared and was given by the accused to her. She FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

further deposed that on 16.07.2015, she visited the office of Ashiana Placement and Travels Pvt Ltd in the morning and met accused Wasim Ahmad, Gautam and Kalpana and Accused Wasim Ahmad told that they have to go for the interview at DMRC Office, Rithala, Delhi. She further deposed that Accused asked for the remaining paymnent of Rs. 53,000/- and her brother who was with her gave payment to Kalpana at the direction of accused Wasim for which he got the receipt. He further deposed that they waited in the office of accused till evening and the accused Wasim told her that HR was not picking up the phone and in the evening, he informed her that mother of HR has died so interview is postpone. She further deposed that after 2-3 days, she again visited the office of accused but he again put her off by saying that HR was not picking up the phone and in this way, one week had elapsed. She further deposed that after one week, she again visited the office of accused with her brother and accused again started making false pretext. She further deposed that they asked for returning their money and accused told them that he will return their money but when accused did not return the money paid to her, her brother had told him that he will file police case against the accused. She further deposed that only then he returned Rs. 20,000/- which was deposited in the account of his brother and remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was not- returned by the accused till date despite being repeated request and she was cheated by accused and Ashiana Placement and Travel Pvt Ltd on the pretext of providing job in DMRC and took money for the same. She further deposed that she had given a complaint at PS Palam Village against the accused dated 31.12.2015 and she had also given original terms and conditions agreement, two receipts, copy of letter FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

dated 11.07.2015, copy of complaint dated 13.12.2015 which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A, Original terms and conditions agreement dated 11.07.2015 is Ex. PW3/B (3 pages), Original receipt dated 11.07.2015 of Rs. 17,000/- is Ex. PW3/B, receipt dated 16.07.2015 of Rs. 53,000/- is Ex. PW3/C, copy of complaint dated 13.12.2015 is Ex. PW3/D, letter dated 11.07.2015 is Ex. PW3/E bearing her name at Point A and also identified the signature of accused Wasim Ahmad at Point B on the same. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dt. 02.02.2024, the court had allowed re-examination of PW Salina, Vir Solanki and Nikita Saini. Subsequently, PW Nikita and PW Vir Solanki were cross examined and discharged however, the presence of PW Salina could not be secured and thus, she was subsequently dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dt. 23.05.2025.

13. PW-4 Sh. Pankaj Kumar deposed that in the month of April, 2015 he had uploaded his resume in Online portal Shine.Com as he was searching for job and after two days he got call from Ashiana Centre Pvt Ltd. Palam Extension Dwarka and they informed him that they can get him job in aviation sector as per his resume and for that he have to visit their office in Palam Extension Dwarka. He further deposed that his friend Somender Veer Solanki had also uploaded his resume on the above website and he also had received call from Ashiana Centre Pvt Ltd for the offer of job. He further deposed that they both went to the office of Ashiana Centre Pvt Ltd at Palam Extension on next day of receiving the call and contacted to the reception where their entries were made and they were told to wait for sometime. He further deposed that they were introduced to the Director Mr. FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Naseem Khan Ahmad and said Naseem Khan Ahmad after going through their resume told them that they were eligible for the job of Cabin Crew and he interviewed them and he assured them that he will provide the job of Cabin Crew in Air India within 15 days and also told them that they have to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- per person for the same. He further deposed that whey they asked what will the surety of providing job after paying Rs.3,50,000/- said Naseem Ahmad told them that he will charge 25% of the amount in advanced and remaining 75% of the amount will be charged after giving appointment letter of the job and also told them that there will be an agreement on the letter head of the company regarding the terms and conditions and payment. He further deposed that they told him to give them time of one week to arrange the money and after one week he received calls from Naseem Khan Ahmad continuously for three days and he told him that he had talked about the job with the some official and if, he was not unable to pay the money it will cause loss of reputation for him. He further deposed that he had told Naseem Khan that he was in the process of arranging money and if he can give him time for arranging money, he can give him cheque to which accused Naseem Khan agreed to the same and thus, he visited his office at Palam Extension where he gave him cheque of Rs. 87,500/- drawn on Dena Bank. He further deposed that on same day an agreement regarding the terms and conditions between him and Naseem Ahmad on the letter head of Ashiana Centre, Pvt. Ltd. and despite his request of one week regarding the clearing of cheque, Naseem Khan Ahmad presented the cheque given by him within three days which was bounced due to insufficient funds. He further deposed that thereafter, Naseem FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Khan called him and told him that he was receiving continuous calls from office of Senior Official of Aviation Company and if he was unable to pay the money for the job he will not get the same and he forced him for payment of Rs.3,50,000/-. He further deposed that on his insistence he told him that he can arrange Rs.50,000/- at that time and he agreed for the same. He further deposed that on next day he visited the office of the Company at Palam Extension, Dwarka where he gave Rs.50,000/- in cash to Naseem Khan Ahmad and he issued a receipt for the same and accused Naseem Khan assured him that he will get the job within 15 days. He further deposed that after 10-12 days he called Naseem Khan Ahmad and asked him about the job interview and he told him that they will arrange the interview shortly, however, even after the lapse of 15 days, he did not receive any call for interview and the accused Naseem Khan continued putting him off on one pretext or other by stating that he had sent the documents and was in the process of arranging job interview and Two months lapsed in this way. He further deposed that he along with his friend Somender also visited the office of the company 2-3 times and Naseem Ahmad used to put them off on the pretext of some meeting or other and he also did not respond to their calls as well. He further deposed that after sometime he called him and told him that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was not sufficient and told him that to arrange remaining amount of Rs. 37,500/- which was the amount of 25% to be paid initially and thereafter, he made the payment of Rs. 35,000/- in cash in the Bank which he inadvertently mentioned in Dena Bank is Mark C and he had also paid Rs.20,000/- to Naseem Ahmad prior to giving Rs. 35,000/-. He further stated that police investigated matter from him. He correctly FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

identified the accused Wasim Khan Ahmad in the court. He was also cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel whereby he admitted that no payment was received by accused Wasim Ahmad from him and also deposed that accused Wasim Ahmad never gave anything in writing to him.

14. PW-5 Sh. Somendra Veer Solanki deposed that in the month of April 2015, he had uploaded his resume in online portal Shine. Com as he was searching for a job and that his friends Pankaj Kumar and Nikita Sengar had also uploaded their resume on the said website. He further deposed that he received call from Ashiyana Placement &Travel Ltd., Palam Extension Dwarka and informed him that they can get him job in Aviation Sector as cabin crew in Air India and his friends also received the call from the same placement agency for the offer of job and he along with his friends went to the office of Ashiyana placement and Travel Ltd. where they met with Naseen Ahmed and he presented himself as the owner/CEO of the company and after meeting with him he told them and assured them that they will get job in Aviation Sector and when they visited the office of the said placement agency their entries were also made at the reception. He further deposed that Accused Naseem Ahmed told them that for the job of cabin crew they had to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- per person and some of the amount in advance. The amount which was demanded by Naseem Ahmad as an advance was of Rs. 87,500/- and that there will be agreement on the letter head of the company regarding the terms and conditions and payment. He further deposed that he along with his friends made the payment to the accused in the company name in the end of April 2015 and that he made payment through cheque drawn on SBI in favour of FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Ashiyana Placement & Travel Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 87,500/- in the office of the company to receptionist Ms. Kalpana and on the same day an agreement regarding the terms and conditions between him and Naseem Ahmed on behalf of Ashiyana Placement and Travel Pvt. Ltd., on the letter head of said company was entered into which is Ex.PW5/A bearing hisy signature at Point A and signature of Naseem Ahmed and stamp of Ashiyana Placement and Travel Ltd at Point B. He further deposed that the receipt of the payment i.e Ex.PW5/B was also issued to him. He further deposed that after making the payment he along with his friends visited the office of said company several times and they were assured that they will get the job soon and in the month of July 2015, when they visited the office of said company accused Naseem Ahmed was not found in the office and at that time accused Wasim Ahmed present who is younger brother of Naseem Ahmed was running the office in the capacity of Assistant Director on behalf of his brother along with Ms. Kalpana and he informed them that the process of their job was going on and they will get the job soon. This witness correctly identified the accused Wasim Ahmad in the court. He further deposed that in the month of October 2015 accused Naseem Ahmed met them in the office of said company who told them that their process of job was struck due to the money and they had to pay of Rs. 50,000/- and thus, he had made payment of Rs. 50,000/- in cash to accused Naseem Ahmed in October 2015 and his friend Pankaj had also made payment of money to him and accused Naseem Ahmed issued receipt of Rs. 70,000/- to them i.e. Ex. PW4/E bearing signatures of Naseem Ahmed at Point A. He further deposed that some amount was not mentioned in the receipt as accused had taken FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

the amount of around Rs. 20,000/- as some case was pending against him in some court. He further deposed that they met him for last time in the end of October 2015 and he again told them that the process of their job was almost complete and for issuing the joining letter they had to pay of Rs. 50,000/- each to him. Thereafter, they visited the office of the company for several times but accused Naseem Ahmed never met them in the office and only accused Wasim Ahmed and Ms. Kalpana used to meet them. He further deposed that once in January 2016 accused Naseem Ahmed met them in the office of the company and they had made call to the police and he alongwith his friend Pankaj gave complaint against accused Naseem Ahmed which bears his name at Point B i.e. Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that prior to that in the month of December, 2015 accused Naseem Ahmed met them in his office of the said company and he had given them in writing to return their money.

15. PW-6 Ms. Nikita Sengar deposed that he had registered on Shine. Com and uploaded her CV and she had received the call from organization styling themselves as Ashiyana Placement Services and she along with her friends namely Somendra Veer Solanki and Pankaj Kumar had gone to the office in Palam. She further deposed her first interview was taken by the accused Waseem, (correctly identified by this witness) and her second interview was taken by Naseem (proceedings are abated) and they were told that recruitment was being done for the cabin crew position in Air India and that they would have to pay security deposit and that she had paid an amount of Rs. 62,500/- by cheque vide the bank account of her mother namely Ms. Sumitra Singh. She further deposed that FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

thereafter, the accused Waseem and Naseem kept delaying the process and kept giving them false assurances regarding interviews and on 23.01.2016 the FIR was finally registered as the accused persons were cheating many aspirants including her and she handed over documents to the police which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. Agreement that had been signed as Ex.PW6/B and the receipt that was issued in the name of her mother is Ex.PW6/C and the cheque issued for Rs. 62,500/- no. 000035 is Mark PW6/1 and her resume that she had handed over is Ex.PW6/D.

16. PW-7 Smt. Swati Saroj deposed that in the year 2015, she received a call from Ashiana Placement & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Co., that they could arrange a job for her in DMRC on the basis of her qualifications, thus, she along with her friend Selina Suman went to their office at G-40, Palam Extension, Sector-7, Dwarka where she met with accused Wasim Ahmad who told them that he is looking after the affairs of the company and his brother Naseem is the Managing Director. She further deposed that accused Wasim told her that he could arrange a job for her in DMRC if she pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to him and out of which 20 % would be given as advance and the remaining would be paid at the time of offer letter. She further deposed that on 11.07.2025, she handed over Rs. 17000/- to accused Wasim at his office against a receipt Ex. S2 and he fixed a date of 16.07.20215 for her interview and when on 16.07.2015 she went to the office of accused Wasim, no interview was conducted but he pressurized her to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 53,000/-, thus, she had given Rs. 53,000/- to him at his office at Palam against the receipt Ex. S3 and an agreement was entered between her and FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Ashiana Placement & Travels Pvt.Ltd. Company i.e. Ex. S1. She further stated that accused Wasim did not arrange any job for her and only returned Rs. 20,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 70,000/- paid by her to him and that she was cheated by the accused to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

17. PW-8 Insp Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 23.01.2016 the complainant Zaved Akhtar came to the PS and stated that accused Nasim Ahmad & Wasim Ahmad had taken money from him on the pretext of providing Job and he recorded the statement of complainant namely Zaved Akhtar i.e. Ex. PW1/A and thereafter, prepared rukka Ex. PW8/A and got registered the present case FIR. He further deposed that thereafter, on 30.01.2016 complainant Zaved Akhtar handed over him one appointment letter of Wipro Company, thereafter, he made inquiries and found that the said appointment letter was forged one, thus, he seized the said letter vide memo Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that on 30.01.2016, two other persons namely Ms. Salina Suman and Ms. Swati Saroj, came to the PS Palam Village and produced some documents which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A and Ex PW8/B respectively and thus, he recorded their statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C and stated that accused Nasim Ahmad & Wasim Ahmad had taken money from them on the pretext of providing Job. He further deposed that on 01.02.2016, three persons namely Sh. Somender Vir Solanki, Mr. Pankaj and Ms. Deepali Gautam, came to the PS Palam Village and stated that accused Nasim Ahmad & Wasim Ahmad had taken money from them on the pretext of providing Job and produced some documents, which he seized vide seizure memos already exhibited as Ex. PW2/A, PW5/D & EX. PW4/B and recorded their statement U/s FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with HC Bhagirath, reached at A 62, Palam Extension, Ramphal Chowk, New Delhi, where Accused Nasim was present and he made interrogation from him, thereafter, he arrested the accused Nasim vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/C, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW8/D and also recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW8/E and thereafter, medical examination of accused Nasim Ahmad got conducted and he was sent to lockup. He further deposed that thereafter, he sought one day PC of the accused Nasim Ahmad from the court and during police interrogation, some documents were also produced by accused which was seized by him vide memo EX. PW8/F. He further deposed that thereafter on 02.02.2016, one Ms. Nikita Singar and Sh. Somender Vir Solanki came to the PS Palam Village and stated that accused Nasim Ahmad & Wasim Ahmad had taken money from them on the pretext of providing Job and produced some documents which he seized vide seizure memos already exhibited as Ex. PW6/A & PW5/E and also recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. He further deposed that he also interrogated the accused Wasim and also served Notice U/S 91Cr. P.C i.e. Ex. PW8/1. He also received reply dated 15.03.2016 and 26.02.2016 received from Wipro for verification of appointment letter i.e. Ex. PW8/2 (Colly). He further deposed that thereafter, on 11.02.2016, Ms. Priyanka, came to the PS Palam Village and stated that accused Nasim Ahmad & Wasim Ahmad had taken money from her on the pretext of providing Job and produced some documents which he seized vide seizure memos as Ex. PW8/G. He also recorded her disclosure statement. He further deposed that on 29.03.2016 he moved an application seeking specimen FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

hand writing of accused Nasim before the court, which was allowed and he took specimen hand writing of accused Nasim and sent the same to FSL for expert opinion and obtained the FSL result regarding and thereafter, after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the court. He correctly identified the accused Wasim in the court.

18. PW-9 Sh. Sachin Awasthi, deposed that he worked as Sr. Executive in Wipro, having office at Plot NO. 480-481, Phase III, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram w.e.f 2013 till 2019. He further deposed that their company received a notice U/S 91 Cr. P.C from the SI Sandeep Kumar to provide requisite document/ information, thus, they provided the same vide letter dated 15.03.2016 and 26.02.2016 i.e. Ex. PW8/2 (Colly) and identified the signatures of Sh. Pritam Diwakar Shettyt, the then Manager/ Authorized Signatories at point A on the said replies, as he had worked with him in his team and also stated that these replies were prepared in his presence. He stated that Mr. Pritam Diwakar Shety has left the job from Wipro.

19. Thereafter, after conclusion of prosecution evidence, the matter was listed for recording of statement of accused.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:

20. Statement of the accused Wasim Ahmad under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.06.2025 in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations leveled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was studying at that time and used to visit the office of his brother Naseem FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Ahmad and that he has no intimation about any business dealing of his brother Naseem Ahmad. Accused further opted not to lead evidence in his defence.

21. The accused persons namely Naseem Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad were sent to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC with the allegations that during the years 2014-2015, they, in furtherance of their common intention, cheated several job aspirants including the complainant Sh. Javed Akhtar by inducing them to part with their hard-earned money on the false assurance of providing employment through their placement agency styled as Ashiyana Placement & Travel Services, Palam Extension, Dwarka. It was further alleged that accused Naseem Ahmad forged an appointment letter purportedly issued by Wipro Technologies and used the same as genuine to deceive the complainant.

22. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. Charges under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC were framed against both accused vide order dated 24.06.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the pendency of trial, accused Naseem Ahmad was declared a proclaimed offender and subsequently reported to have expired; therefore, proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 24.01.2019. The trial thereafter continued only against accused Wasim Ahmad.

23. The prosecution examined nine witnesses including multiple victims of the alleged job scam, the Investigating Officer, and a representative from Wipro Technologies. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Wasim Ahmad was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

allegations and claimed false implication. He chose not to lead any defence evidence.

24. The following questions arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, cheated the complainant and other victims by dishonestly inducing them to deliver money on the false pretext of providing jobs, thereby committing offence under Section 420 IPC?

(ii) Whether accused Naseem Ahmad forged the appointment letter of Wipro Technologies, and whether such forged document was used as genuine, attracting Sections 468 and 471 IPC?

(iii) Whether accused Wasim Ahmad shared the common intention and actively participated in the cheating and use of forged documents, making him liable under Section 34 IPC?

25. Therefore, to prove the genesis of dispute and the cause of action to lodge the FIR, the following ingredient are required by the prosecution to be proved:-

(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

FIR No. 35/2016

St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived

(i) to deliver any property to any person, or

(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security)."

26. The term forgery has been defined in section 463 IPC and making a false document has been defined U/S 464 IPC as follows:

463. 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.

Section 464 defining "making a false document" is extracted below :

"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record---

First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently -

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;

(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed,executed, transmitted or affixed FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.

Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.

27. From the above, it is observed that the condition precedent for an offence under sections 468 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof).

28. An analysis of section 464 of Indian Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:

i) 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 FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.

ii) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or 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.

iii) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes 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

29. 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 term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Therefore, the ingredients for offence U/S 468 IPC are :-

1. Whosoever commits forgery as defined U/S 463 IPC,

2. and uses the said forged documents for the purpose of cheating as defined in section 420 IPC.

FIR No. 35/2016

St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Section 471 IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.

Section 470 IPC defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery.

Therefore, the condition precedent for an offence U/S 468/471 IPC is "forgery" and condition precedent for forgery is making a "false documents"

A person is said to have made a false document if :-

a. he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else or b. he altered a document or tempered a document or c. he obtained a document by practicing deception

30. Now, analyzing the evidence on record, it is observed that the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Javed Akhtar forms the foundation of the prosecution case. His evidence is detailed, cogent, and consistent. He categorically deposed that he was induced by accused Naseem Ahmad to pay Rs.1,10,000/- on the assurance of a job in Wipro Technologies and was handed over a purported appointment letter, which was later confirmed to be forged by Wipro authorities. His testimony regarding FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

payment of money, handing over of the forged letter, and subsequent discovery of fraud has remained largely unshaken in cross-examination.

31. The version of PW-1 is substantially corroborated by PW-9 Sh. Sachin Awasthi from Wipro Technologies, who proved that the appointment letter relied upon by the complainant was not issued by Wipro and was forged. The official replies furnished by Wipro under Section 91 Cr.P.C. clearly establish that the document was fabricated. Thus, the prosecution has conclusively proved that a forged document was created and used as genuine.

32. Apart from PW-1, the prosecution examined several other victims namely PW-2 Deepali Gautam, PW-3 Selina Suman, PW-4 Pankaj Kumar, PW-5 Somendra Veer Solanki, PW-6 Nikita Sengar, and PW-7 Swati Saroj. A careful reading of their testimonies shows a strikingly similar modus operandi adopted by the accused persons: online advertisements, false assurance of jobs in reputed organizations such as Jet Airways, DMRC, Air India, demand of hefty amounts, issuance of receipts/agreements, repeated delays, and ultimately failure to provide any job or refund the money.

33. These witnesses have consistently identified accused Wasim Ahmad as a person who was actively present in the office of Ashiyana Placement & Travel Services, interacted with the victims, demanded money, issued receipts, assured interviews, and in some cases returned partial amounts only when threatened with police action. Their testimonies inspire confidence and establish a pattern of cheating, rather than isolated civil disputes.

FIR No. 35/2016

St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

34. The argument of the defence that accused Wasim Ahmad was merely visiting the office of his brother and had no role in the business is not believable in light of overwhelming oral and documentary evidence. Several witnesses have categorically stated that Wasim Ahmad projected himself as Assistant Director or as the person managing affairs of the company in the absence of Naseem Ahmad. He negotiated amounts, accepted payments, signed documents, and extended assurances. His active participation clearly establishes shared common intention.

35. It is a settled position of law that cheating under Section 420 IPC requires dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. In the present case, the repeated false assurances, non-existence of any genuine recruitment process, forged appointment letter, and multiplicity of victims clearly demonstrate that the intention of the accused was dishonest from the very beginning.

36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, has held that when fraudulent or dishonest intention is present at the time of making the promise, the offence of cheating is made out. Applying this principle, the facts of the present case unmistakably show dishonest intention ab initio.

37. As regards the offence under Section 468 IPC, the evidence on record specifically attributes the act of forging the Wipro appointment letter to accused Naseem Ahmad. Since proceedings against him have abated due to death, and there is no direct evidence showing that accused Wasim Ahmad himself forged the FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

said document, the offence under Section 468 IPC cannot be fastened upon accused Wasim Ahmad.

38. However, the offence under Section 471 IPC stands on a different footing. It is not necessary that the accused himself forges the document; it is sufficient if he knowingly uses a forged document as genuine. The evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that the forged appointment letter was used in the course of cheating, and accused Wasim Ahmad was part of the placement agency and actively involved in deceiving candidates. Knowledge of forgery can be safely inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. S. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (2004) 11 SCC 576, held that knowledge of forgery can be inferred from conduct and circumstances. In the present case, the continued false assurances and absence of any genuine recruitment process clearly indicate such knowledge.

40. The defence contention that this is merely a civil dispute is devoid of merit. The presence of forged documents, multiple victims, and systematic deception takes the case far beyond the realm of a civil breach. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, has clarified that where fraudulent intention and deception are established, criminal liability is clearly attracted notwithstanding availability of civil remedies.

41. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds as under:

(i) The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Wasim Ahmad, in furtherance of common intention with accused Naseem Ahmad, FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

cheated the complainant and other victims by dishonestly inducing them to deliver money on the false promise of providing jobs, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

(ii) The prosecution has further proved that forged appointment letters were used as genuine in the course of cheating. Accused Wasim Ahmad is liable for offence under Section 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

(iii) However, in the absence of direct evidence of forgery by accused Wasim Ahmad, and since the alleged forger Naseem Ahmad has expired, accused Wasim Ahmad is entitled to benefit of doubt for the offence U/S 468 IPC.

42. In view of the above discussion, the Accused Wasim Ahmad is hereby convicted for the offences punishable U/s 420 and 471 Read with Section 34 IPC, however, acquitted for the offence U/s 468 IPC.

43. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentence.

                                              SAURABH                  Digitally signed by
                                                                       SAURABH GOYAL

                                              GOYAL                    Date: 2026.01.13
                                                                       15:07:43 +0530
Announced in the open court on                        (Saurabh Goyal)
this day i.e. 13th January, 2026         JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka,
                                                        New Delhi

It is certified that this judgment contains 31 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.13 15:07:49 +0530 (Saurabh Goyal) JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR No. 35/2016 St. Vs. Naseem Ahmad & Ors.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs Naseem Ahmed on 13 January, 2026