Delhi District Court
State vs Pardeep Kumar Ors on 30 January, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF SAURABH GOYAL: JMFC-01
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DWARKA, DELHI
State Vs. : Pardeep Kumar & ors.
FIR No : 81/2008
U/s : U/S 323/325/341/ 506/448/420/468/467/120 B /34 IPC
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
CNR NO. : DLSW020001932012
1. Cr. Case No. : 424887/2016
2. Date of Institution : 24.04.2010
3. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Savitri Sidana W/o Sh. D.R.
Sidana
4. Name, address and parentage : 1) Pradeep S/o Sh. Ram Prasad
of Accused 2) Usha Devi W/o Sh. Pardeep
Kr.
3) Sanjeet Kumar S/o Sh. Ram
Prasad
4) Ram Parsad S/o Sh. Nand
Ram (proceedings against him
abated as expired)
5. Charge framed against accused : U/S 323/ 325/341/506/448/
420/468/467/120 B/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquittal
8. Date of reserve for orders : 29.01.2026
FIR NO. 81/06
St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
2
9. Date for announcing the orders : 30.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely 1) Pardeep Kumar, 2) Smt. Usha Devi and 3) Sanjeet Kumar, were facing trial for offence U/S 323/325/341/506/448/ 420/468/467/120 B /34 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story as narrated in the complaint is that on 05.11.2008, at about 7:30 PM, the complainant Desraj Sidana and Savitri Sidana went to their plot bearing no. RZH-876, Gali No.13, Raj Nagar, Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'property in question') and as soon as they reached there, accused Pradeep and his family members with other associates came there armed with hockey sticks and bricks. Complainant alleged that assailants acclaimed to have won the Court case and now to teach them lesson they assaulted complainants. It is alleged that since 2004, accused and his family are troubling him qua the property in question. Complainant further alleged that accused filed two cases qua the property in question - one, under Section 145 CrPC before Criminal Court and second, Civil case, which are alleged to have been dismissed with the intervention of the Hon'ble High Court. Complainant further alleged that accused side have ill-intention to grab the property in question. Complainants claimed title over the property through a Registered Sale Deed dated 31.05.1984 alleging that property bears no. RZH-876 in Khasra No. 56/12 ad- measuring 200 sq. Yds., whereas accused claims property bears no. RZH-873 in Khasra No. 56/20/1 ad-measuring 222 sq. Yds. Complainants also alleged he got information that few days prior to the incident, accused Pradeep got installed electricity connection/ meter. Complainants hence sought legal action after FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
3registration of FIR. Based on the said information present FIR No. 81/2003 was registered and after the detailed investigation the present chargesheet for commission of offence punishable U/s 325/341/448/467/471/120B IPC was filed in the court against all the accused persons namely 1) Pardeep Kumar, 2) Smt. Usha Devi, 3) Sanjeet Kumar and 4) Ram Prashad.
2. At the stage when the matter was listed for appearance of accused persons as well as for taking cognizance of the offence, it was reported that the accused No. 4 Ram Prashad got expired, thus, present case proceeding got abated against him. Thereafter, after taking cognizance of the offence vide order dated 09.03.2011 against the accused persons namely Pardeep Kumar, Usha Devi and Sanjeet Kumar, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led. The said order dated 09.03.2011 was also unsuccessfully challenged before Ld. ASJ, South West Dwarka.
3. Thereafter, the arguments on charge were heard and vide detailed order on the point of charge dated 10.09.2014, the charge against all the three accused persons namely Pardeep Kumar, Usha Devi and Sanjeet Kumar were framed on 13.12.2014 for offence U/S 323/325/341/506/448/420/468/467/120 B /34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In the present case supplementary chargesheet was also filed as there was adverse claim of ownership on the property in question by the complainant side as well as by the accused side. It is pertinent to mention here that after the conclusion FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
4of trial a settlement was arrived at between the parties in the mediation centre pursuant to which the complainants namely Sh. DR Sidhana and Smt. Savitri Sidhana compounded the offences punishable u/s 323/325/341/506/448 IPC and the accused persons namely Pradeep, Usha and Sanjeet were acquitted vide order dt. 29.01.2026.
5. In order to prove allegations against accused persons, prosecution has examined following prosecution witnesses.
6. PW-1 Sh. D R Sidhana deposed that in the year 1981, there were seven bhumidars who converted their agricultural land into residential plots and they allotted plot numbers to those plots and out of those seven bhumidars, Ram Prashad (accused since expired) was one of them. He further deposed that accused Ram Prashad was father of accused Pradeep and Sanjeet and on 12.10.1981, they sold plot no. 14 (having khasra no. 56/12 measuring 200 sq.yards) which is now RZH-876, Gali No. 13, Raj Nagar-ll, Palam Colony to Basant Lal/Rajender Kumar who further sold the said plot to his wife Smt. Savitri Sidhana on 31.05.1984. He further deposed that on 10.01.2010 they contributed towards sewer pipelines which was confirmed by co-residents in writing and on 26.02.2004, vide GPA No. 1323 Ram Prasad executed GPA for property 873 khasra no. 56/20/01 area 222 sq. yards (vacant property) without mentioning any plot numbers in favor of his son Sanjeet Kumar and thereafter, on 17.05.2004, Sanjeet Kumar executed sale deed 3537 in favor of his brother Pradeep. This property had already been sold by seven bhumidars on 12.10.1981 to Mitresh Chander Fal but its area was 100 sq. yards. He FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
5further deposed that accused Pradeep only arranged the forged documents from Sub-Registrar, Kapeshera and there was no transfer and possession of property RZH-873 and same remained in possession of Mitresh Chander Pal, the original buyer in 1981. He further deposed that accused Pradeep arranged a number plate RZH-873 from Central Commercial Industry of India to display this on property of Savitri Sidana my wife bearing no. RZH-876. He further deposed that on verbal complaint of Mitresh Chander Pal, Central Commercial Industry of India re- surveyed the area and found RZH-873 as only one property in Gali No. 13, Raj Nagar-ll, Palam Colony, Delhi measuring 100 sq. yards and the same agency also found that in gali no. 13, on one side of street there are odd number houses and opposite sides there were even number houses and they found the claim of accused Pardeep as false and frivolous, as he claimed that his property RZH-873 is adjoining 872, however, they found property 873 is in between property 871 &
875. He further deposed that Pradeep also claimed that his property is adjoining house of Bimla Devi, was also found incorrect as property 872 is owned by Pushpalata Dagar w/o Sh. Veerpal Singh Dagar. He further deposed that Central Commercial Industry after finding that accused Pradeep got the house number plate issued fraudulently, the same agency canceled the number plate 873 allotted to Pradeep and also canceled the receipt towards the amount paid by Pradeep. He further deposed that in July 2004, he along with his wife Savitri Sidana performed pooja at site followed by construction of one room and boundary wall at their property RZH-876, (khasra 56/12) Gali no. 13, Raj Nagar-ll, Palam Colony. He further deposed that on 22.06.2004, Pradeep filed a civil suit against him and the FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
6same was dismissed and thereafter, on 15.07.2004 filed another suit in the court of SDM, Najafgarh U/s 145 Cr.P.C. SDM, Najafgarh asked a report from SHO, Dwarka to investigate and SHO, Dwarka reported to SDM, Najafgarh that D.R. Sidana never claimed property RZH-873 and it was reported by him that RZH-873 is already constructed and Mitresh Chander Pal lives in said property since 1986 and that SHO further reported that complaint of Pradeep is false and frivolous and he proposed a strict action should be taken against him for wasting his time. He further deposed that on 25.09.2008, Pradeep by submitting his forged documents to BSES, arranged electric connection at their property RZH-876 and he displayed RZH-873 on property 876 and displayed the same number plate which was canceled, thus, they lodged a police complaint on 26.09.2008 at PS Dwarka but police did not take any action as they were told that there is going to be a new police station in Palam Village, thereafter, on 29.09.2008, they telegram a complaint and on 30.09.2008 they wrote a registered letter to BSES highlighting about this illegal electric connection and made request for immediate removal of the same. He further deposed that thereafter, on 15.12.2008, BSES asked his wife to submit khasra authentication of property 876, khasra 56/12, Raj Nagar-ll and on 22.01.2009, they submitted demarcation report from revenue authorities which clearly highlighted that their property 876 is in khasra 56/12 and its area is 200sq.yards and this report further stated that khasra 56/20/01 is in Gali No. 14 and not in Gali 13. Thereafter, on 11.05.2009, BSES confirmed Savitri Sidana as well as Pradeep about disconnection of connection at property 876 on 08.05.2009 and on 26.05.2009, BSES also confirmed to SHO, Palam Village about this FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
7disconnection and BSES also made it clear that Pradeep failed to submit khasra proof of his property and hence, this disconnection. Thereafter, on 05.11.2008, he along with his wife visited their property RZH-876, Ram Prasad, Pradeep, Sanjeet their wives and 15-20 of their associates attacked on them and Pradeep's mother Indrani and his wife Usha caught hold of him and Sanjeet also having hockey stick in hand gave fist blows on his face and his tooth was broken. He further submitted that his wife was also attacked by Usha and Indrani and she also got injuries and Ram Prasad (since expired) was also present, thus, on same day, they lodged a police complaint i.e. Ex. PW1/A at PS Palam Village and they were medically examined at DDU Hospital in supervision of police and on the same day, they applied electric connection for their property 876. Thereafter, on 10.11.2008, a demand note was issued and they made payment of the same on 11.11.2008. He further deposed that accused Pradeep and his family threatened them not to visit their property at RZH-876 otherwise they will face dire Consequence. He submitted property related documents to IO Inspector S.S. Rathi on 09.11.2008 and during investigation, IO collected documents from accused persons and also made inquiries from neighbors, RWA presidents and also involved Revenue Authorities by arranging demarcation of property. He further deposed that IO concluded that on one side of street, houses are of odd number and on the other side, houses are of even number and 873 is not adjoining to 872 and that property 872 is owned by Pushpalata Dagar and not by Bimla Devi and that property 873 is constructed house and not vacant property and that property is of 100 sq. yards and not 222 sq. yards. He further deposed that the neighbors, RWA president confirmed that FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
8property 873 is only one in Gali no. 13 which is owned by Mitresh Chander Pal and said Mitresh Chander Pal also confirmed that 873 in Gali no. 13 is only one and that belongs to him and not to some one else. He further deposed that in the year 2009, Pradeep, Sanjeet and his wife Usha were arrested in Dwarka Court vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D and they were released on bail. He further deposed that in the year 2010, Ram Phal also gave his statement to IO that he had no knowledge of property and he only gave witness as he was neighbor of accused Pradeep. He further deposed that in the year 2011, IO took original property documents from him for FSL report and IO prepared seizure memo of documents Ex. PW1/E and the Original documents i.e., GPA dated 12.10.1981, Deed of Agreement dated 12.10.1981, Affidavit dated 12.10.1981 and receipt dated 12.10.1981 are collectively Ex. PW1/F (Colly). He further deposed that IO also took statement of one of the surviving bhumidar namely Om Prakash wherein he also confirmed that plot 14 now RZH-876 and plot 39 is now RZH-873 had already been sold by him and his other six brothers which included Ram Prasad, father of Pradeep, in 12.10.1981 made GPA which was wrong and this property was joint of seven and Ram Prasad was neither given any authority by other six nor he was alone Competent to execute the GPA in favor of his son Sanjeet. He further deposed that since sale deed was prepared by Sanjeet in favor of his brother Pradeep is based on forged document and hence, committed forgery by submitting the same document for obtaining electricity meter before BSES. He further deposed that he can produce original documents in favor of his wife executed by Basant Lal and Rajender. He correctly identified Accused Usha and FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
9Sanjeet in the court. He further produced the original deed of agreement executed between Basant Lal, Rajender Kumar sons of Sh. Hari Ram and Savitri Sidana dated 31.05.1984 and the photocopy of same which is on record is Ex. PW1/G (OSR). He further testified that the date of contribution towards sewage pipe line which was earlier deposed by him but same be read 03.10.2001. He further deposed that Property particulars of Property RZH-876 of Savitri Sidana are entirely different from property RZH-873 of accused Pradeep and that the property particular of RZH-876 of Savitri Sidana are plot no. 14 Khasra 56/12 now known as RZH-876 area 200 sq. yds dimension 36x50 feet on east side house of Pushplata Dagar w/o Sh. VS Dagar, on South Gali 20 feet and on North and West service lane of 10 feet. Property RZH-876 is constructed property with one room and a boundary wall. The particulars of RZH-873 of Pradeep are plot number details are not given in the sale deed, Khasra no. 56/20/1 area 39.8x 54.4 feet on East House of Vimla Devi, on South Main Road and North and West details are not provided. Pradeep claims his this property RZH-873 as vacant plot. Scrutiny of particulars of both the properties reveal that these two properties are not comparable with each other. The investigations and statement reveal that property RZH-876 and Property RZH-873 totally different in area, Khasra Number, dimension and description of directions in North, East, West and South. Illegal Electricity connection CA. No.103376073 disconnected at their property on 08.05.2009 and the same was confirmed to Pradeep by BSES on 11.05.2009 with copy to Savitri Sidana which was also confirmed to SHO PS Palam Village, however, the meter was not removed by BSES. He further deposed that after this said disconnection Pradeep FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
10arranged/connected pole wire with electric meter and got the bills generated due to incremental reading which was confirmed by BSES vide their letter dated 18.01.2017 and the said generated bills were supported along with the plaint made before the revision court by accused persons, hence, Pradeep submitted a false affidavit to the revision court and wasted more than 2 and half years of precious time of the court. Pradeep had been given opportunity twice to prove his Khasra of property RZH-873 by BSES i.e on 25.02.2009 and again on 18.01.2017, however, Pradeep failed to respond to BSES to prove his Khasra of property RZH-873. There has been disconnection of illegal electricity connection CA. No. 103376073 twice by BSES i.e on 08.05.2009 and again on 03.03.2017. Savitri Sidana has been sanction electricity connection RZH-876, Khasra 56/12 on 10.11.2008 and again on 12.04.2017 but this electricity connection was not allowed to be installed by Pradeep and his family particularly his mother who is always with her stick and uses filthy language and does not allow anybody to enter in the property to install the electricity Connection and on 23.02.2017 Consumer grievance redressal forum ordered BSES to disconnect Pradeep illegal electricity connection and install electric meter of Savitri Sidana at her property RZH-876. Pradeep in collusion with one police official namely Ajay Mishra didn't let the meter installed at his above said property despite of the order of the CGRF. He correctly identified all three accused persons in the court.
7. Smt. Savitri Sidana was examined as PW-2. She deposed that there are two sets of property documents with two different people with different details putting their claim on one piece of property. Property details of the documents which she FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
11possess is RZH-876 measuring 200 Sq. Yds in the Khasra No. 56/12 on the eastern side there is RZH-872 owned by Pushplata Dagar w/o Sh. Virpal Singh Dagar on the south side there is a 20 feet gali which was constructed property with the boundary wall and a small room. She further deposed that the details of the property documents possess by accused Pardeep is RZH 873 in the Khasra No. 56/20/1 measuring 222 sq. yds which is a vacant plot with site plan as on the eastern side there is RZH-872 owned by Bimla Devi and on the south side there is wide roads. She further deposed that source of her property documents in 1981 seven bhumidars viz Dhani Ram, Dhan Singh both sons of Sher Singh, Om Prakash, Rameshwaram both sons of Sh. Sundu, Ram Prasad, Ram Singh and Balwan Singh sons of Nand Ram and that seven brother cousins in themselves were the joint owners of their ancestral agricultural land which they decided to convert into residential colony in the Palam Village, New Delhi in 1981 and that they sold several plots to different buyers in the khasras no. 56/12, 56/20/1 one such plot no. 39 was sold to Sh. Mitresh Chander Pal now it is RZH-873 measuring 100 sq. yds in the khasra no. 56/12 on 12.10.1981 and another plot-no 14d to Rajender Kumar and Basant Lal now RZH-876 measuring 200 sq. yds in the khasra no. 56/12. She further deposed that she purchased this plot from Rajender Kumar and Basant Lal on 31.05.1984 and that these both plots are registered with Sub Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, vide receipt no. 18270 and 18271 bearing the signatures of all the seven bhumidars. She further deposed that Ram Prasad one of the seven bhumidars was the father of accused persons Sanjeet and Pradeep. She further deposed that in the year 2001 she paid for the sewerage/drainage pipe line witness by the neighbourers FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
12and she had receipt for the same also and that in July 2004 she along with her husband Sh. D.R Sidana, some relatives and friends and neighbourers performed site pooja on her property RZH-876 and constructed a boundary wall and a small room and displayed her property NO. RZH-876 with her name and also name of her husband on the front gate. She further deposed that in February, 2004 Ram Prasad father of accused persons Sanjeet and Pradeep prepared a GPA in favour of his son Sanjeet and after three months in May, 2004 Sanjeet executed sale deed for the same property RZH-873 in favour of brother Pradeep. She further deposed that one of the surviving bhumidars Sh. Om Prakash gave a statement U/s 161 Cr.PC to IO stating that Ram Prasad was not authorized nor he was competent enough to sell or prepare GPA in the khasras no. 56/12 and 56/20/1 as plots under these khasras were already sold by the seven brothers in 1981 to different buyers and that all the transfer documents bear the signatures the seven bhumidars, thus, the source of property documents possess by Pradeep is False and Frivolous. She further deposed that she did not remember the exact date and month but it may be in month on June/July in the year 2004, accused Pradeep filed the civil suit against her husband Sh. D.R Sidana and few days later he filed a criminal case in the court of SDM, Najafgarh. SDM Najafgarh appointed SHO Dwarka to investigate the matter and in his report submitted to SDM Najafgarh, SHO observed that there was only one RZH-873, in gali no.13, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Village, measuring 100 sq. yds and he further pointed out that, it is a constructed house where Mitresh Chander Pal lives with his family since 1986 and that SHO further pointed out that D.R. Sidana was not in any way interfering with the property as outlined by the FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
13documents possessed by Pradeep. She further deposed that in November, 2004 Central Commercial Industry of India in its re-survey observed that Pradeep had fraudulently obtained the number plate RZH-873 as no such plot existing in gali no.13 and they observed that the only plot RZH-873 belonged to Sh. Mitresh Chander Pal. Central Commercial Industry of India Further observed that there were odd number of houses on one side of the lane and even number of houses on the other side across the lane. So RZH-872 was observed to be opposite to RZH- 873 and was not adjacent to RZH-873 as mentioned in the property documents of the accused Pradeep, thus, Central Commercial Industry of India canceled the number plate RZH-873 allotted to Pradeep and the same was reported to SDM Najafgarh and to them also. She further deposed that on 23.09.2008 accused Pradeep along with his family members trespassed his property RZH-876, removed her number plate from the front gate and erased their names and instead displayed his number plate RZH-873 (which was cancelled by CCII) and his name on the front gate. They complained against this on 24.09.2008 to PS Dwarka. She further deposed that on 25.09.2008 accused Pradeep got electricity connection on her property RZH-876 by submitting his property documents to BSES and she complained against this to BSES as they had not till then applied for any electricity connection on her property RZH-876 and thereafter, on 29.09.2008 and 30.09.2008 they informed the police commissioner through telegram and by sending a registered letter to the manager BSES. She further deposed that on 05.11.2008, she along with her husband visited her property as they approached near their property, Ram Prasad, his wife name not known, Pradeep, his wife Usha and Sanjeet and FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
14with some other persons attacked her husband and the ladies took hold of her husband and Sanjeet started beating him with hand blows and in the said scuffle the glass of specs of her husband got broken and he suffered grievous injury. She further deposed that when she rushed to help him, she was caught hold of by accused Pradeep and his mother and wife started beating her due to which she also suffered simple injuries. She further deposed that some more persons came with sticks and bricks and waving them in the air, they threatened them with dire consequences if they ever dared visit their property, thus, they made a police complaint already Ex.PW1/A and FIR 81/08 was registered and they both were taken to DDU Hospital and medically examined in the presence of police. She further deposed that on 05.11.2008 they applied for electricity connection on their property RZH-876 and BSES issued a demand note on 10.11.2008 and the same was paid on 11.11.2008 and BSES asked them to authenticate their property consequently demarcation by the Revenue Department was carried on and it submitted its report on 24.12.2008 to IO wherein it has been outlined that khasra no. 56/12 falls in gali no. 13 and the plot in question where the violent incident took place on 05.11.2008 measures 200 sq. yds and tallies with the property documents with she possess and it was further explained in the said report that khasra no. 56/20/1 falls in gali no.14 which tallies with the property documents held by accused Pradeep. She further submitted that in January, 2009 they submitted the khasra proof of their property according to the demarcation report above to BSES and as a result on 08.05.2009 BSES disconnected the electricity connection which Pradeep had fraudulently taken on her property and the same was FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
15informed to them on 11.05.2009 and again on 26.05.2009 to SHO that electricity connection given to accused Pradeep was disconnected because he failed to give khasra of his property. She further deposed that regarding FIR 81/08 they submitted all the documentary evidences along with annexures on 09.11.2008 to IO for detailed investigation of the land grabbing activities of the accused persons vide letter Ex.PW2/A and All the annexures are Marked as Mark PW2/A1 (colly) and Annexure A2 was Exhibited as Ex.PW1/G. She further deposed that on 30.11.2009 they requested for fast investigation vide letter Ex.PW2/B along with anexures Marked as Mark PW2/A2 (colly). She further deposed that in 2010 first charge- sheet in respect of FIR 81/08 was submitted as many important evidences were missing and they were not satisfied so they wrote a letter to police commissioner Marked PW2/A3 to further investigate the matter in detail and in response to their letter detailed investigation was done and final charge-sheet was submitted in 2014. She further deposed that on the basis of investigation done by the IO several evidences have been unlisted which indicate that RZH-873 is only one gali no.13 it belongs to Mitresh Chander Pal. RZH-876 in the Khasra no. 56/12 measuring 200 sq. yds in gali no.13 belongs to her and these evidences indicate that there is no such property in gali no.13 as given in the property documents of the accused Pradeep. The IO in his concluding remarks has mentioned that Ram Prasad (since expired) father of the accused persons Sanjeet and Pradeep conspired with his son to prepare the GPA and then the sale deed in favour to accused Pradeep to grab her property RZH-876 by changing the number plate and name of the front gate and by submitting the false sale deed to BSES people got the electricity connection which FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
16has been disconnected twice once on 08.5.2009 and secondly in March, 2017 on the basis of the order given by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF). She further deposed that she purchased this property with her hard earned money in 1984 and Original documents of her property are Ex.PW1/F (colly) and PW1/G. She correctly identified the Accused Sanjeet, Pradeep and Usha in the court.
8. PW-3 Sh. Mitresh Chander Pal, deposed that he bought the plot bearing no. RZH-873, Gali No. 13, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam Colony, New Delhi, ad measuring 100 sq. yards in the year 1981 on which he raised the construction in the year 1986 and it is three side open plot and that he had purchased the aforesaid plot from 5 to 6 Bhumidars, however, today due to lapse of time he did not remember their names. He brought the original GPA dated 12.10.1981 which was executed in his favour by Dhani Ram, Dhan Singh, Om Prakash, Rameshwar, Ram Prasad, Raj Singh and Balwan Singh GPA is Ex. PW3/A (OSR). He also brought a receipt of Rs 7,000/- dated 12.10.1981 i.e. Ex. PW3/B (OSR). He also brought Deed of Agreement dated 12.10.1981 and affidavit of the above-mentioned persons I.e. Dhani Ram, Dhan Singh, Om Prakash, Rameshwar, Ram Prasad, Raj Singh and Balwan Singh i.e. Ex.PW3/C (OSR) and Ex.PW3/D (OSR). He further deposed that his plot is three side open plot of 100 sq yards bearing Plot NO. RZH-873 and that there was a plot of Mr Siddana in front of his plot however, he did not know the plot number of Mr Siddana and that the boundary wall and one room was constructed in the said plot and that no one lived in the said plot and that he had seen Pradeep Solanki visiting the said plot. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police in the police station.
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
179. PW-4 Shri Sanjay Bhagat, Asstt. Vice President, KCC Department, Nehru Place, New Delhi, deposed that from the year 2006-2009, he was posted with the BSES Office at C-2D, Janak Puri, New Delhi as Business Manager and as per the process prescribed for getting new connection consumer has to apply and at that time he needs to file an application for connection accompanied with ownership documents of the property, ID proof, affidavit and test report. He further deposed that the present case application for getting new electricity connection was made regarding property No. R711-873, Gali No. 13, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam Colony, New Delhi and the name of the applicant was Pardeep S/o Shri Ram Parsad and thus, BSES employee Ram Avtar went for the site inspection and he made the report and submitted it with Asstt. Manager Power Supply as per the prescribed procedure and one BSES employee Sh. Satinder Kumar installed the electricity meter as per the request of applicant Pardeep on the property in question. He further deposed that at the time of the installation of the meter, a meter installation report (MCR) is prepared at the time of the installation of the meter presence of the applicant or his family member is required. He further deposed that BSES did not verify the authenticity of ownership documents of the applicant submitted with the application and the meter was installed at the site shown by the applicant.
10. PW-5 Sh. R. S. Rana (Retd. Tehsildar, Palam) deposed that on 25.08.2010, he was posted as Tehsildar, Palam, District South West and on that day, he received a letter from the IO seeking information with regard to khasra no 56/12 and 56/20/1 Palam Village, New Delhi, i.e. Ex.PW5/A, thus, on the said request, he called the report from Halka Patwari, Palam Village and same report was received by him on FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
1831.08.2010 i.e. Ex. PW5/B and he had forwarded the said report on 03.09.2010 alongwith his covering letter which is Ex. PW5/C and that he had also enclosed a khatoni of the said khasra number with his report. He further deposed that as per report, they were not having the record with regard to the plot and hence, unable to give the plot numbers.
11. PW-6 Dr. Yogendra Nath Maurya, deposed on behalf of Dr. Kritya Dubey qua MLC No 21890/2008 and MI.C No.21891/08 of Patients namely D. R. Siddana and Savitri were examined by Dr. Kritya. He further deposed that Mr. D. R. Siddana was referred to dental department for further examination and thereafter, on the basis of the report of the dental department, the nature of the injury was opined as grievous and the patient D. R. Siddana was brought to the causality department DDU hospital with alleged history of assault. He exhibited both ML.Cs as Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B bearing the signature of Dr. Kritya Dubey at point A and he identified the signature of concerned Doctor as he had seen her signing and writing various documents at the DDU hospital during the official discharge of his duties.
12. PW-7 Sh. Desh Raj proved the original register pertaining MLC No. 21890 of patient namely D R Sidhana as Ex. PW6/A (OSR) and also MLC NO. 21891 of Patient namely Sh. Santu Sidhana as Ex. PW6/B (OSR). He further deposed that the opinion regarding the injuries on the MLC No. 21890 was given by Dr Urvashi, Sr. Resident, bearing her signatures at point A on the said MLC NO. 21890, i.e. Ex. PW7/A (OSR) and MLC N O. 21891 as Ex. PW7/B (OSR).
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
1913. PW-8 Sh. Bhan Singh Jakhar deposed that in the year 1998, he was President of Residents Welfare Association, Raj Nagar, Part II, H Block, Palam Colony and that the previous president namely S.D. Verma had given him the layout plan of odd even numbers. He did not remember anything about this case. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP for state with the permission of the court as as he did state the whole facts. During his cross examination by Ld. APP, he admitted that the layout plan was in his knowledge and the property numbers were mentioned in the lay out plan. He also admitted that House No. 863 to 881 were mentioned in Street No.13 from Chotu Ram Marg to Dada Dev Mandir and on the other side, House NO. 870-880 were mentioned. He also admitted that there is only one H. No. 873 and opposite to that H. No. 876 was mentioned. He also admitted that the layout plan Mark A was handed over to him by previous RWA President Sh. S D Verma, however, stated that he did not remember if he had handed over the same to IO or police or not. He stated that he did not remember, if Government had issued any House Numbers in the Locality. He stated that he could not tell if the Previous President Sh. S D Verma was qualified Draftsman or duly authorized by DDA to make the layout plan i.e. Mark A.
14. Sh. Surender Singh, Asst. Commissioner, SGST, Department of Trade & Taxes, Vyapar Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi was examined as PW-9, who deposed that in the year 2008, he was posted as Tehsildar Palam Village and Police officials had requested the Revenue Staff of concerned area to demarcate the disputed the properties and also issued one request letter i.e. Ex. PW 1/D7 for the same and upon the request of the IO, his Kanoongo namely Sh. Sunehra Singh prepared one FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
20report i.e. Ex. PW9/A bearing signatures of Mr. Sunehra Singh at point B and after going through the said report, the said report was forwarded by him which bears his signatures at point A.
15. PW-10 Sh. Gopi Ram deposed that no such alleged incident had taken place in his presence and that no quarrel had ever taken place in his presence. He stated that he knew accused Pradeep Solanki as he resides in his vicinity. He stated that he did not know complainant. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for state with the permission of the court as he resiled from his earlier statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. During his cross examination by Ld APP, he stated that he had purchased the plot bearing NO. 874, Raj Nagar Part II, Gali No.1 Palam New Delhi from Sh. Nakli Ram R/o H. No. 781, Raj Nagar II, Palam New Delhi and at the backside of the said plot there was a vacant plot having boundary wall, when he started residing there in the year 2001. He stated that he did not have any knowledge if the said plot was purchased by Sh. Nakli Ram from one Sh. Rahis Ahmad. He admitted that the house numbers were given by the Association Member of Locality. He denied the suggestion that the plots from Gali NO. 13 towards his house were having Even Number and at the opposite side, all the plots were having Odd Number. He stated that he had never seen anything written on the door of vacant plot No. H NO. RZH-876/Disputed Property. He denied to have given statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C to the police.
16. PW-11 Sh. Sumer Singh, deposed that he did not know anything about the present case FIR and resiled from his statement and thus, he was cross examined FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
21by Ld. APP for state with the permission of the court whereby he admitted that he was the president of H-2 Block Raj Nagar Part II, Resident Welfare Association and that he had not received any layout plan from the Previous Association and he denied to have received any layout plant of H-2 Block Raj Nagar Part II and he denied all the other suggestions put by Ld. APP for state and also denied his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
17. PW-12 Sh. Prabhu Dayal Bhatia deposed that he was the witness to Agreement i.e. Ex. PWI/G bearing his signatures at point A & B as witness. He stated that the affidavit dated 07.06.1984 was executed in his presence and also admitted his signatures at point A on the receipt of payment i.e. Ex. PW12/A. He stated that all these aforesaid documents were prepared and signed in his presence and that the payment was also made in his presence.
18. PW-13 Sh. Veer Pal Singh Dagar, deposed that he is the neighbour of the complainant having his house adjacent to house of the complainant since 1991. He further deposed that his house is total 200 sq. yds. Out of which 100 Sq. Yds bearing the address as Plot No. RZ, H NO. 489, Khasra No. 56/19/1, Village Palam and the second portion of 100 Sq. Yads is bearing the address as Plot NO. RZ, H. NO. 488, Khasra No. 56/12/1, Village Palam. He stated that the said house was in the name of his wife namely Smt. Pushpa Lata and that they had purchased the same from one Sh. Ishwar Dut and Smt. Anandi Devi who had purchase it from landlord Sh. Dhan Singh, Sh. Dhani Ram, Sher Singh, Om Prakash, Rameshwar, Ram Prasad, Raj Singh and Balwan Singh, Sh.Nand Ram villages of Palam Village, FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
22New Delhi. He stated that he got all the relevant documents pertaining to the said property prepared and duly executed bearing signatures of his wife. He further submitted that for their convenience the RWA was formed which had deputed number to the houses, as per which the even numbers have been provided to the house of one lane and the odd numbers have been provided to the houses of the opposite lane. He further deposed that in the year 1991, Mr. Sidana gave his phone number to him and told him to take care of his plot as he often visit his plot and that after some time, some other person started visiting him who informed him that the plot belongs to him, thereafter, he arranged one meeting of both the parties in order to clarify the dispute but it was not clarified. He stated that during investigation the IO had recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
19. PW-14 Smt. Bhudevi Gupta deposed that she was the neighbour of the complainant and when the complainant had come to reside in their vicinity at their residence they had distributed sweets to them for their house warming ceremony. She further submitted that after that, they had sold their house and that she did not know anything about the property dispute pending between the parties. She did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and thus, was cross examined By Ld. APP with the permission of the court. During her cross examination by Ld. APP she admitted that her statement was recorded by IO i.e. Ex. PW13/A wherein she has sated that the disputed property i.e. Plot No. RZ-876 was a vacant plot surrounded by boundary walls with one gate and one small room was constructed inside the said plot. She denied to witness the incident dated 05.11.2008 happened between the complainant and accused persons on the pretext FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
23that she had gone to her Kerosene Depot at Subroto Park on that day. She admitted that the complainant used to visit the disputed property at the time of construction of one room as he borrowed water for the same from them. She stated the due to lapse of time, she did not remember the Khasra Number of her plot or that it is Khasra NO. 56/11 or not.
20. PW-15 ASI Satyapal deposed that on 06.11.2008, he went to DDU Hospital along with complainant Sh. DR Sidana and his wife namely Savitri Sidana, as per the directions of Insp. SS Rathi and got conducted their medical examination and obtained the relevant MLC and handed over the same to concerned IO and that Complainant and his wife also returned back to PS along with him.
21. PW-16 Sh. Virender Singh deposed that from the year 2007 to 2010 he was General Secretary of RWA of H2 Block Raj Nagar, Part II and Mr. Sumer Singh was it's President at that time and that he handed over one Layout Plan of H2 Block Raj Nagar Part II which was made in the year 1989, bearing the signatures of Sh. O P Malik (Addl. Term Planner) i.e. Mark A, to the Police official/IO. He further stated that the said layout plan do not contain the number of any of the property whether it was built up or vacant plots or plots with boundary walls but it only depicting about the Street/Lane numbers.
This witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP with the permission of the court, on the point of proving the laying plan Mark A. During his cross examination by Ld. APP he denied that as per the layout plan Mark A, all the even FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
24number were allotted/written to the plots/house in one side of the lane and odd number were written or allotted to the houses/plot of opposite/other side of the lane. He also denied that in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C dated 05.01.2009, he told the police officials that he cannot say anything about the property bearing NO. RZH 873 and RZH 876.
22. PW-17 Sh. Ashok Kumar ACP, HQ North East District, New Delhi, deposed that on 08.07.2009, the investigation of the present case was marked to him, however, he had not conducted any investigation in the present matter and in the meanwhile, the present case file for further investigation was marked to DIU.
23. PW-18 Retired ASI Ranvir Singh deposed that on 05.11.2008, on receipt of DD NO. 45 B, he along with Ct. Pradeep went to the spot ie. Plot NO. RZH873, Gali No.13. Raj Nagar, Part II where complainant Sh.D R Sidana along with his wife Mrs. Savitri met him who narrated the whole incident and Complainant Sh. D R Sidana gave a written complaint i.e. Ex. PWI/A to him, in the meanwhile SHO PS Palam Village also came to the spot who directed him to get registered the present case FIR and thus, he prepared tehrir/rukka Ex. PW18/A and handed over the same to Ct. Pradeep who went to the PS and get the present case FIR registered and returned back to the spot along with Insp. S S Rathi, to whom further investigation was marked. He further deposed that at the spot, Smt. Usha wife of Pradeep Solanki met him who told him that she got injured and was going to hospital for her medical examination and she also told him that plot No. 876 was her plot as same was purchased by her husband Sh. Pradeep Solanki.
24. PW-19 Sh. Surender Singh Rathi, ACP Sub Division Tilak Nagar, deposed FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
25that on 05.11.2008, after registration of present case FIR, further investigation of the present case was marked to him and thus, he along with Ct. Pradeep went to the spot i.e. Plot NO. RZH873, Gali No.13, Raj Nagar, Part II where ASI Ranvir, complainant Sh.D R Sidana along with his wife Mrs. Savitri met him who narrated the whole incident and told him that they have purchased a plot RZH876, Gali No.13, Raj Nagar, Part II and some person namely Pradeep Solanki got installed Electricity Meter upon the same. He further stated that he prepared site plan Ex.PW19/A at the instance of complainant and thereafter, he sent both the complainant and his wife for their medical examination. He further deposed that at around 3:00 Am he came back to PS and after medical examination, complainant and injured also came back to the PS from the hospital, thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant and his wife U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he also recorded the statement of ASI Ranbir Singh who got registered the present case FIR and Constable accompanying him. He further deposed that he also asked the complainant to produce the documents to support his claim on the alleged property and thereafter, on 09.11.2018, complainant and his wife submitted the title documents of the property in question to him which he sought vide letter dated 09.11.2008 i.c. Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that during investigation, he served Notice upon the BSES Commercial Manager regarding installation of electric connection at property NO. RZH-876, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam Colony, New Delhi and he received reply dated 28.11.2008 along with the relevant documents, from the office of BSES Business Manager i.e. Ex. PW 19/A (Colly 15 pages). He further deposed that he also examined the neighbours residing around the property FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
26in question and also recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, he also wrote an application i.e. Ex. PW1/D7 to concerned Tehsildar requesting him for the demarcation of the disputed property and he also wrote a letter to Revenue Department dated 24.12.2008 i.e. Ex. PW19/B and he received demarcation report from Revenue Department i.e. Ex. PW9/A and thereafter, he got transferred from the concerned PS thus, he handed present case file to the MHCR Concerned.
He further deposed that thereafter, in August, 2010, while he was posted at DIU, South District, the investigation of the present case was again marked to him and during further investigation, he received Nakal Khatoni from the concerned Tehsildar vide letter dated 20.08.2010 i.e. Ex. PW5/A, Tehsildar replied vide reply Ex. PW5/C along with the Khatoni i.e. Ex. PW19/C and vide Khatoni Ex. PW19/C it was revealed that Khasra NO. 56/12 & 20/1, were jointly owned by 7 persons (bhumidars) and out of those bhumidar one Bhumidar namely Om Prakash S/o Sh. Sundu was found alive, thus, he recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C who disclosed that there were 7 joint owners of the above said khasra and none of them alone could sell any portion of the land in the said Khasra. He further deposed that he also seized the specimen hand writing signatures of Om Prakash vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/D and specimen signatures of Om Prakash are Ex. PW19/E (colly 3 pages). He further deposed that he had also served notice upon the accused Pradeep Kumar to join the investigation, however, they did not join the same despite many opportunities granted to him and thereafter, I got transferred thus, he handed over the case file to Reader to ACP, concerned.
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
2725. PW-20 Retired Inspt. Krishan Kumar, deposed that on 25.09.2009, the investigation of the present case was marked to him for further investigation and during investigation of the present case on 04.12.2009 he received documents regarding installation of electricity connection at property No. RZH-873, Raj Nagar II, Palam Colony, New Delhi and those documents contained office copy of acknowledgment for new connection, request number N26600809097, copy of application for new connection alongwith test report of registered contractor, copy of sale deed, copy of affidavit, copy of ration card and he exhibited the said documents with reply dated 04.12.2009 is Ex. PW20/A (colly 19 pages). He further deposed that on 25.12.2009, he seized the sale deed along with other documents vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/B and that he also got verified the documents of the complainant from Sub Registrar Kashmere Gate. He further deposed that he filed an application i.e. Ex.PW20/C, to Sub Registrar Kashmere Gate to obtain certified copy of Registry NO. 18270 and during investigation, he also moved an application i.e. Ex. PW20/D before Sub Registrar, Kapasehra to obtained certified copies. He further deposed that he also obtained the result of the MLC of accused Smt. Usha and he formally arrested the accused Pardeep, Sanjeet Kumar and Usha vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B, Ex.PW1/D & Ex.PW1/C respectively and thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the concerned court.
26. In the present matter at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence and during cross examination of prosecution witnesses, Ld. Defence Counsel moved an application seeking calling for service record of the accused persons Sanjeet to prove their alibi and also to put the said question during cross FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
28examination of prosecution evidence. The said application was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge on 14.05.2019. The said Order was challenged before the then Ld. ASJ, South West Court, however this time successfully. The Ld. ASJ Court vide Order dated 17.07.2019 directed this Court to summon the relevant records sought by the accused Sanjeet to put questions of his alibi to the prosecution witnesses.
27. As regards the plea of alibi, having perused the Orders of the Ld. Predecessor dated 14.05.2019 set aside under Revision vide Order dated 17.07.2019, Ld. Predecessor of this court, allowed defence to summon records to prove their alibi. The defence's alibi qua accused Pradeep and Sanjeet are fixated on their employment record particularly attendance sheet with their employer i.e. Private entity. Accused Pradeep is stated to have been employed with Hawk Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd., whereas accused Sanjeet Kumar was employed with Oberoi Flights Services. Since then, this Court has examined Sh. Arvind Kumar, HR Officer M/s Oberoi Flight Services, IGI Airport as Court Witness No.1. This witness produced record pertaining to the details of employee Sanjeet Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Prasad having Workmen NO. 14238. He further deposed that as per the record, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Prasad was registered in the Muster Roll as Sanjeet at serial no.780 and there is no person with workmen no.14238 in the company. He brought the certified copy of Muster Roll of November 2008 of the employees of Obroi Flights Services and at serial no.780 the attendance details of one employee Sanjeet are mentioned and as per the shift schedule, A stands for morning shift (07:00 am to 04:00 pm), B stands for afternoon shift (12:00 pm to FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
2909:00 pm), C stands for night shift (09:00 pm to 06:00 am) he exhibited the schedule as Ex.CWI/A.
28. Ms. Pushpa Singh, HR (Coordinator) Universal Cargo Solutions, was also examined as Court witness No.2, who brought on record the Resolution passed in the Minutes of Meeting of the Directors of Universal Cargo Solutions Pvt. Ltd. held on 18.07.2022 i.e. Ex. CW2/A (OSR) by which she was authorized to depose before the Court. She stated that she was working as HR (Coordinator) in the abovesaid company and copy of her ID card is Ex. CW2/B (OSK). She further deposed that the record of Hawk Cargo Company which has been summoned by this Court was not available as the company Le Hawk Cargo was closed in the year 2009 and the same has been converted into the name of Universal Cargo Solutions in the year 2015. She further deposed that the record of employee Sh Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Prasad as mentioned in the summon i.e. workman No. 14238 in respect of service record for the period of 01.11.2008 to 30.11.2008 is not available or traceable as the company has been converted almost 13 years back and all the record of Hawk Cargo which was closed in the year 2009 has been weeded out way back.
29. Sh. Sachin Yadav Assistant General Manager (Law), AAI, Regional Head Quarter, Northern Region Rangpuri, was also examined as Court Witness No. 3, who proved his I Card as Ex.CW1/A. He submitted that as per the E Note of the Department and based upon the documents received with notice, Sh. Pardeep was the employee of the Hawk Cargo working with Export Cargo handling during October, 2008 and the Salary slip issued by M/s Hawk Cargo Services Pvt.
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
30Ltd (Public Amenities Building, International Cargo Terminal, IGl Airport, E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001) itself indicates that the attendance records of Sh. Pradeep was maintained by the employer M/s Hawk Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. and since AAI has already handed over the management of IGIA, International Air Cargo Terminal to JVC companies I.e. GMR/DIAI. In 2006.
30. Apart from the above documents to prove alibi, the accused side has even sought records from ESI Hospital, Basaidarapur to place on record MLC No. 518/2008 of accused no.2 Usha W/o Pradeep who is alleged to have also sustained injuries on 05.11.2008. In this regard upon issuance of summons to the concerned hospital, Dr. Arpit Tiwari, CMO, ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur, has also appeared who stated that the MLC No. 518/2008 dated 05.11.2008 of Ms. Usha W/O Pardeep has been weeded out vide letter issued by Additional Medical Suptd. Dr. Anita Mittal Mark C1. Hence, Ld. Predecessor of this court passed detailed Order dated 13.09.2022 allowing reliance on secondary evidence i.e. Mark C1 since original has been weeded out.
31. At the stage when the matter was listed for prosecution Evidence, the accused persons namely Pardeep, Usha and Sanjeet Kumar got recorded their statement U/s 294 Cr. P.C dated 21.02.2023, without admitting the contents therein, they admitted the genuineness of BSES meter installed in the name of accused Pardeep and as such they tendered their no objection to drop witness cited at serial no.11 i.e. BSES contractor, at serial no.12 i.e. lineman and serial no.13 i.e. lineman and meter installer. They also had tendered their no objection, to drop witness FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
31cited at serial no.4 of supplementary charge-sheet i.e. Business Manager, BSES as they did not dispute the notice issued by the BSES suspending electricity connection in name of accused Pardeep. They also did not dispute the genuineness of documents dated 12.10.1981 as well as 26.02.2004 registered with the Sub Registrar office vide no.18270 and 18271 at Kashmiri Gate as well as vide 3537 at Kapashera Office thus, tendered their no objection to drop witness cited at serial no.25 and 26. They also did not dispute the genuineness of DD No.45B and FIR no.81/08 and therefore, they tendered their no objection to drop witness cited at serial no.21 i.e. Duty Officer. They also tendered their no objection to drop the witness cited at serial no.18 Sh. Ramphal who was an attesting witness to the documents executed by accused and stated that they made the statement voluntarily without any fear, pressure or coercion, pursuant to which vide detailed order dated 21.02.2023 Eight Witnesses i.e. Witness at SR. No. 11, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, 26 from the list of witnesses as well as witness at Sr. No. 4 of the supplementary chargesheet were dropped.
32. Thereafter, after the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the matter was listed for recording of statement of accused persons and the statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 03.01.2026 wherein accused denied all the incriminating evidence and claimed their false implication in the present case, however, they opted not to lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
32APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
33. Therefore, the genesis of dispute and the cause of action to lodge the FIR in itself stands falsified as for the purpose of commission of offence U/S 420/468/471 IPC, the following ingredient are required to be proved as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs St. of Bihar, Dt. 04.09.2009":-
"The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows:
(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.
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)."
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
3334. 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 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 FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.34
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.
35. 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). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the accused persons, in executing and registering the sale documents purporting to take possession over property RZF-873 (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to them), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the each other.
36. An analysis of section 464 of 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. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.35
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
(c) deception practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
37. 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 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.
Section 471 IPC provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
36believe 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
38. The hon'ble apex court in the above said judgment of Md. Ibrahim has further elaborated the provision of section 463 to 471 IPC and has held that :-
"There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.37
not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 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 he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted."
39. The investigating agency has made successive purchaser as accused and without proper investigation has impleaded all the beneficiaries as per the chain of documents as co-accused. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed in the Judgment of Md. Ibrahim (Supra) as follows:-
"14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co- accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.38
complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418,419 or 420 of the Code.
When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. The term `fraud' is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of `fraud' is "deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage". Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines `fraud' with reference to a party to a contract. In Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration - AIR 1963 SC 1572, this Court explained the meaning of the expression `defraud' thus "The expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied."FIR NO. 81/06
St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
3940. The facts of the case revolve around a long-standing property dispute between the complainant, Sh. Des Raj Sidhana (PW-1), and his wife Smt. Savitri Sidana (PW-2), on one side, and the accused persons-Pardeep Kumar, Usha Devi, and Sanjeet Kumar on the other, culminating in an alleged violent incident on 05.11.2008 at Plot No. RZH-876, Gali No. 13, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi. The complainants claim ownership of this plot (measuring 200 sq. yds. in Khasra No. 56/12) through a chain of documents originating from a 1981 transaction involving seven joint bhumidars, including the late Ram Prasad (father of accused Pardeep and Sanjeet), who sold Plot No. 14 to Basant Lal and Rajender Kumar, who in turn sold it to Savitri Sidana via a registered sale deed dated 31.05.1984 (Ex. PWI/G). This claim is bolstered by documentary evidence, including a GPA, agreement, affidavit, and receipt from 12.10.1981 (Ex. PW1/F colly.), as well as contributions to local infrastructure like sewer pipelines in 2001, site pooja and construction in July 2004, and successful applications for electricity connection in November 2008 and April 2017. Revenue demarcation reports (Ex. PW9/A, PW5/B-C) from Tehsildars confirm that Khasra 56/12 falls in Gali No. 13, matching the complainants' plot dimensions and location, with eastern boundary adjoining RZH-872 owned by Pushpa Lata Dagar (corroborated by PW-13 Veer Pal Singh Dagar). Furthermore, the Central Commercial Industry of India (CCII) re- survey in November 2004 invalidated the accused's claim to a duplicate RZH-873 in Gali No. 13, canceling their number plate and confirming only one RZH-873 (100 sq. yds., constructed, owned by PW-3 Mitresh Chander Pal since 1981, with documents Ex. PW3/A-D). BSES records (via PW-4 Sanjay Bhagat) show the FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
40accused obtained an electricity meter (CA No. 103376073) on 25.09.2008 by submitting their documents, but it was disconnected twice (08.05.2009 and 03.03.2017) for failure to prove khasra linkage, while the complainants' connection was sanctioned but obstructed by the accused.
41. In contrast, the accused's title claim stems from a GPA dated 26.02.2004 executed by Ram Prasad in favor of Sanjeet for RZH-873 (Khasra 56/20/1, 222 sq. yds., described as vacant, adjoining Bimla Devi's house on east and main road on south), followed by a sale deed dated 17.05.2004 to Pardeep. However, surviving bhumidar Om Prakash's statement (recorded by 10 PW-19) reveals Ram Prasad lacked authority to execute alone, as the land was jointly sold in 1981. Investigations by IOs (PW-19 Surender Singh Rathi and PW-20 Krishan Kumar) uncovered inconsistencies: layout plans (from PW-8 Bhan Singh Jakhar and PW-16 Virender Singh) show odd-even numbering with no adjacent RZH-873 to 872; neighbors (PW-10 Gopi Ram, PW-11 Sumer Singh, PW-14 Bhudevi Gupta, though some resiled) and RWA presidents confirmed no duplicate plot; SHO Dwarka's report to SDM Najafgarh (2004) deemed the accused's claims false. The accused allegedly trespassed on 23.09.2008, replaced the complainants' number plate with their canceled RZH-873, and obtained the BSES connection fraudulently. Prior civil suits by the accused (dismissed) and Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings highlight the dispute's civil nature, but the prosecution alleges criminal intent through forgery and cheating.
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
4142. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the record, this Court proceeds to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution in order to determine whether the charges framed against the accused persons stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution case essentially relates to the alleged criminal conspiracy, forgery and cheating in relation to the property bearing no. RZH-876/RZH-873 and the procurement of an electricity connection on the basis of disputed documents.
43. PW-4, an official from BSES, has proved that the electricity connection was granted on the basis of documents submitted by accused Pradeep and that BSES does not verify the authenticity of title documents at the time of granting a new connection. This testimony is significant, as it supports the prosecution version that merely obtaining an electricity connection cannot be treated as proof of lawful ownership or possession.
44. The revenue officials examined as PW-5 and PW-9, and the investigation conducted through demarcation reports, collectively indicate that Khasra No. 56/12 falls in Gali No.13 and Khasra No. 56/20/1 falls in Gali No.14. This aspect directly supports the prosecution version that property RZH-876 of the complainant, situated in Khasra No.56/12, is distinct and different from the property claimed by the accused under Khasra No. 56/20/1.
45. To sustain the charges for offence punishable under section 420 /467/468/471 IPC, the evidence is being analysed. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant D.R. Sidana/PW1 and his wife Ms Savitri Sidana/PW2. From their joint testimony, it emerges that they have purchased a plot FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
42bearing number RZH - 876, Gali number 13, Rajnagar part II, Palam colony, New Delhi, measuring 200 yd.² vide registered GPA dated 31.05.1984 alleging that the property bearing number RZH - 876 in Khasara number 56/12 was purchased by them from the original 7 Bhumidars. The accused on the other hand have claimed the title over property bearing number RZH - 873 in Khasara number 56/20/1 measuring 222 yd.² It has come in evidence that the accused Pradeep got installed electric connection/meter in the property bearing number RZH - 873 which has been purchased by the accused from the original co-sharers and through one Ram Prasad (since deceased).
46. Therefore, from the circumstances of the case and evidence on record it emerges that the property claimed by the complainant D R Sidhana bears number RZH 876 and measure 200 sq yds. Whereas the accused claims their property bearing number RZH 873 measuring 222 sq yd. It has come in evidence that on 24.12.2008 the demarcation of the subject plot was carried out by Halka Kanoongo Sh. Sunehra Singh who has stated that the property in question falls in Khasara number 56/12 and not in 56/20/1 and the area of subject plot is 200 yd.². The said demarcation report is produced on the file as Ex PW9/A which also contains a rough site plan. Therefore, the description as well as dimension of the property belonging to the complainant is different from the property claimed by the accused.
47. It has also come in evidence that PW2/ Savitri Sidhana has reported the matter to the police vide Ex. PW2/B wherein she has highlighted the property purchased by them and the property allegedly purchased by the accused as below:-
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.43
Particulars Savitri Sidana W/o Sh. Pardeep Solanki S/o Sh.
D. R. Sidana Ram Parshad
Khasra 56/12 56/20/1
House No. RZH-876 RZH-873
Area 200 Yds 222 Yds
Dimension 50° X 36' 50'4" X 39'8"
Location (E) House Shiri Vir Pal House of Bimla Devi
Singh Dagar Main Road
(S) Gali 20'
(N) Gali 10' Not given
(W) Gali 10' Not given
48. It has also come in evidence that several litigations cropped up between the parties on account of dispute regarding demarcation/location of the property. It has also come in evidence that the prosecution has based its claim on that the accused has got installed electricity connection in the property bearing number RZH - 876 which actually belong to the complainant and the matter was reported to BSES, was disconnected as evident from disconnection order dt. 11.05.2009 Mark PW2/A2 (colly).
49. It is pertinent to mention that the accused Pradeep applied the meter connection for property bearing number RZH - 873, Kasara number 56/20/1 which is not of the complainant. Therefore, accused Pradeep has not claimed property FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.44
number RZH-876. It has also come in evidence that accused Sanjeet S/O Ramprasad is GPA holder of Ram Prasad vide GPA dated 26/02/2004 and has executed Sale deed dated 19/05/2004 in favour of his brother Pradeep pertaining to property bearing number RZH - 873 measuring 222 sq yds. Therefore, there is voluminous evidence on the file that the Complainant has purchased the plot bearing number RZH-876 whereas the accused has documentation for plot bearing number RZH-873. Therefore, both the properties are evidently different. It pertinent to mention here that the complainant/PW1 has given a statement dated 03.07.08 Ex. PW1/D1, before Ld. Civil Judge in suit number 367/06/04 stating that he is neither the owner nor claim any right, title or interest in the suit property bearing number RZH - 873, measuring 222 yd.² out of Kasara number 56/20/1. Similarly, Savitri Sidana/PW2 has suffered a statement that she has no concern with the suit property situated at plot number RZH - 873 measuring 222 Sq. yards EX. PW1/D5 and in view of the said statement, the Hon'ble High Court passed the order dated 30.07.2014. Therefore, from the circumstances of the case, it emerges that complainant PW1 and PW2 has got no concern with the plot RZH - 873, measuring 222 sq yds. which has been claimed by the accused. It is again pertinent to mention that the accused filed a civil suit number 292/2004 against the complainant. D.R. Sidana, and his wife wherein they have not claimed their right over the plot bearing number RZH - 873 measuring 222 sq yds as is evident from certified copy of his plaint, EX. PW1/D6.
50. Therefore, from the evidence and circumstances of the case, it emerges that the complainant PW1 and PW2 have claimed their right and ownership over FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
45the plot number RZH - 876 whereas the accused have claimed their ownership over plot number RZH - 873 and both the parties have proper chain of documents. The only dispute pertains to demarcation and measurement of plot number RZH 873 and in the absence of the same, the accused parties have claimed their ownership over the plot number RZH - 876 which belongs to complainant. The prosecution have collected the original documents of both the parties and have collected their specimen signature for comparison by FSL. The FSL authorities have also not given any specific opinion that the accused party forged the document. There is no other report of forgery alleged to have been committed by the accused. The dispute between the parties seems to have taken place due to mistaken identity and location of the plot, regarding which the accused has chain of property documents and under the mistaken identity the accused got electric connection installed from BSES in the plot of complainant RZH 876 and when the said fact was brought to the knowledge of BSES authority, then they removed the said meter which was installed due to mistaken identity of the plot.
51. During investigation it has come in evidence that disputed plot when got demarcated by the revenue authorities then it was revealed that plot number RZH - 876, Gali number 13 was situated in Kasara number 56/12 and not in 56/20/1 regarding which the complainant has valid property documents. The revenue authorities have also reported that Khsara NO. 56/12 is in Gali number 13 and Kasara number 56/20/1 is in Gali number 14 regarding which the accused have got their sale deed. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence on the file that there are two sets of documents and the sale documents of property situated at RZH -
FIR NO. 81/06St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
46876 belongs to the complainant and the accused party is holder of sale documents pertaining to RZH - 873.
52. If the plot belonging to the accused regarding which the sale documents were executed by father of accused Pradeep and his brother is RZH 873 then the accused cannot claim possession over RZH - 876 belonging to the complainant. Evidently, it is a case of mistaken identity of location of the plot.
53. Upon appreciation of the evidence, it is evident that the property dispute dates back to 1981 when seven bhumidars, including the accused's father Ram Prasad, jointly sold plots, with the complainants deriving valid title through subsequent registered deeds, whereas the accused's claim via a 2004 GPA and sale deed lacks authorization as per the surviving bhumidar's statement, yet as held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, executing a document claiming ownership over property not belonging to the executant does not constitute making a false document under Section 464 IPC absent impersonation, unauthorized alteration, or deception of an incompetent person, and thus no forgery under Section 463 IPC arises, rendering Sections 467, 468, and 471 inapplicable since the accused executed in their own names without the requisite intent to fabricate as if by another's authority. Furthermore, for cheating under Section 420 IPC, the Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 emphasized the need for dishonest inducement causing delivery of property or harm, which is absent here as the complainants were not deceived or induced to part with anything, and the alleged FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
47fraud on BSES caused no proven loss nor was complained of by BSES, with the connection disconnected without material benefit, thereby failing to attract Section 420 and consequently, the conspiracy charge under Section 120B read with 34 IPC collapses absent substantive offences.
53. In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused persons therefore, this Court holds the accused persons namely Pardeep Kumar, Usha Devi and Sanjit Kumar are not guilty of commission of the offence in question. Thus, the Accused persons namely Pardeep Kumar, Usha Devi and Sanjeet Kumar are hereby, acquitted of the offence U/S 420/468/471/120B IPC.
SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.01.30 16:26:12
+0530
Announced in Open Court (Saurabh Goyal)
on this 30th January, 2026 JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 47 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed by signatures. SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.01.30 16:26:18 +0530 (Saurabh Goyal) JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR NO. 81/06 St. Vs. Pardeep Kumar & Ors.