Delhi District Court
Smt. Sandhya Goyal vs State on 19 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ASJ / NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 79/2018
CNR No. DLNE01-004715-2018
SMT. SANDHYA GOYAL
W/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goyal
Presently in Jail, Delhi.
....... Revisionist
Vs.
STATE
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.11.2018
Order Reserved on : 05.01.2019
Date of Order : 19.01.2019
93
9
FIR No. : 141/2015
PS : Sonia Vihar
U/s : 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC
ORDER
1. The present criminal revision is directed against order dated 12.10.2018 passed by Ms. Anu Aggarwal, learned ACMM (North-East) in criminal case arising out of FIR No. 141/2015 of PS Sonia Vihar. Vide this order, learned ACMM has directed for framing of charges u/s 420/468/474/467/471/120-B IPC and Sec. 120-B IPC against the accused/revisionist.
2. I have heard Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for revisionist, Sh. D.K. Singh, learned Addl. PP for the State/respondent and Sh. V.S. Panwar, learned Counsel for complainant.
Crl. Revision No. 79/2018 Sandhya Goyal vs. State Page 1 of 7
3. Allegations of complainant were under:-
4. The present FIR was lodged by complainant Sh. Vijay Singh. He alleged that accused Ashok Kumar alongwith Yashpal Singh Chauhan and Smt. Sandhya Goel/Sandhya Goyal (revisionist herein) entered into a criminal conspiracy. It has been alleged that complainant wanted to purchase some immovable property and made inquiries in the Shahdara area. Accused Yashpal Singh Chauhan and Ashok Kumar were the property dealers. Through both these accused, complainant met Smt. Sandhya Goel. She represented herself to be the owner of some agricultural land. She represented that she was owner by virtue of one Will of Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goel. Complainant inspected the land, and after negotiation, the price was fixed at Rs. 26,62,50,000/-. Complainant alleges that accused Ashok Kumar and Yashpal Singh used to remain present in all the meetings. Complainant also alleged that upon the insistence of accused persons, he had paid Bayana/earnest amount of Rs. 5.5 crores. Rs. 1 crore was paid by cheque and the rest was paid in cash. He alleges that two agreements which were already typed were also got signed. Both the accused Ashok Kumar and Yashpal Singh became witnesses in the agreements executed on 07.08.2012.
5. Later on, complainant came to know that the property which was subject matter of the agreements was actually subject matter of one civil suit bearing C.S. (OS) No. 1760/12 titled Kamlesh Kumari & Anr. v. Sandhya Devi & Anr. pending in the Hon'ble High Court; and there was stay order also against Smt. Sandhya Goel. Complainant came to know that Smt. Kamlesh Kumari was Crl. Revision No. 79/2018 Sandhya Goyal vs. State Page 2 of 7 claiming that she was actual wife of Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goel and the Will relied by Smt. Sandhya Goel was forged one. Complainant thus stopped further payment and confronted all the three accused persons. He further alleges that all the accused persons apologised to him and requested him not to file any case and assured to refund entire earnest amount. On their asking, complainant gave time till 10.03.2013 to repay the amount. On 10.03.2013, they further sought some more time. Complainant states that while agreeing to grant time, to secure his interest, he got executed fresh agreements on 11.03.2013 and time was extended till 11.10.2013. However, in October 2013 also no payment was made. Two further agreements were executed in his favour and time was granted till 12.01.2014 in respect of two different pieces of lands.
6. He also alleges that five post dates cheques amounting to Rs.2.5 crores were issued to him by some third person; and when complainant confronted the accused persons about these cheques being from third person, the accused persons gave a written undertaking in this regard on 13.02.2014. It is stated that the said cheques were issued by one Mr. Bakshi and he himself became bound and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. Complainant also came to know that Smt. Kamlesh Kumari had also lodged an FIR against Smt. Sandhya Goel, Yashpal Singh and Ashok Kumar vide FIR No. 191/12 at PS Jafrabad u/s 420/408/471/120-B IPC.
7. It is further alleged that complainant filed a complaint at PS Sonia Vihar, and because of fear of being arrested, accused Ashok Kumar, on behalf of accused Smt. Sandhya Goel and Yashpal Singh, gave five cheques for Rs.2.5 Crl. Revision No. 79/2018 Sandhya Goyal vs. State Page 3 of 7 crores to the complainant and requested him not to pursue the said complaint case. A written acknowledgment was also given in this regard. All the five cheques were, however, dishonoured on presentation. When complainant contacted the accused persons, they misbehaved with him and refused to repay his amount. Hence, case was registered.
8. After registering the case u/s 420/120-B/34 IPC, investigation was carried out. During the investigation, all the three accused persons did not join investigation. Process u/s 82 CrPC were issued against all of them. Section 467/468/471 IPC were added. Accused Ashok Kumar was arrested on 10.02.2016. Documents were also seized. Specimen signatures of accused Ashok Kumar were taken and were sent to FSL, Rohini. Accused Yashpal Singh was also arrested on 16.03.2016. However, Smt. Sandhya Goel was still absconding. The original Will purportedly executed by Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goel was got examined from Truth Labs during investigation in case FIR No. 191/2012 PS Jafrabad and it has been found that signature of Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goel on the said Will are forged. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Ashok Kumar and Yashpal Singh u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC.
9. Learned ACMM vide order dated 26.08.2016, directed for framing of charges against accused Ashok Kumar and Yash Pal Singh u/s 420/471/120-B IPC. He refused to frame any charge u/s 467/468 IPC.
10. Thereafter revision petitions were filed by the State as well as Ashok Kumar and Yashpal against the order on charge. This court decided both the Crl. Revision No. 79/2018 Sandhya Goyal vs. State Page 4 of 7 revision petitions. The order of learned ACMM was upheld. It was held that charge u/s 467/468 IPC could not be framed.
11. Thereafter accused Sandhya Goyal has been arrested. Supplementary chargesheet has been filed against her. Vide impugned order dated 12.10.2018, learned ACMM has now ordered for framing charges against revisionist/accused Sandhya Goyal as noted above. Not only this, TCR reveals that learned ACMM is reconsidering framing of charges against Ashok Kumar and Yashpal for the other offences.
12. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that no charge is made out against accused Sandhya Goyal. He contended that learned ACMM has ignored various materials on the record. He argued that the present dispute at the most is regarding breach of contract. He referred to Sec. 62 of the Indian Contract Act and submitted that no offence of cheating is made out. He also contended that prosecution was unable to specify as to who had forged the Will and, therefore, no charge for forgery is made out. During arguments, learned Counsel submitted that the Will is not forged. He propounded that the deceased Shyam Sunder Goyal used to sign differently on different papers. He submitted that signature on the Will are also genuine. He also pointed out that complaint case u/s 138 NI Act has already been filed by the complainant. Therefore, the present case cannot continue. He prayed for discharged.
13. On the other hand, learned Addl. PP, duly assisted by learned Counsel for complainant, has supported the impugned order. He submitted that there was enough material to frame the charges.
Crl. Revision No. 79/2018 Sandhya Goyal vs. State Page 5 of 7
14. Elaborating the arguments, learned Counsel for revisionist vehemently submitted that the first contract was made on 07.08.2012. He pointed out that these two agreements were superceded by fresh agreements dated 11.03.2013 vide which time was extended till 11.10.2013. Two further agreements were executed on 09.10.2013. Time was granted till 09.12.2013 and 14.01.2014 in respect of two portions of the properties. Thereafter another agreement was entered into between Mehmood Jafar Bakshi on 13.02.2014. Thereafter another agreement was executed between accused Ashok Kumar on behalf of Sandhya Goyal on 04.06.2014. Learned Counsel for revisionist argued that there was novation of contracts and, therefore, no case of cheating was made out. He also pointed out that complainant has not disclosed source of money allegedly paid to accused.
15. Having heard learned Counsels, and having perused the record, it appears to me that there is no ground for me to take a different view from the one already taken and expressed in judgment dated 01.03.2017 while disposing of revision petitions filed by co-accused Ashok Kumar and Yashpal as well as by the State.
16. The various agreements executed between the parties one after the other do not mean that there was no offence of cheating. The inception of the transactions still remains where it was and it was at this point of time that a forged Will of late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goyal was shown to the complainant as ownership proof. On the basis of forged Will, the complainant was induced to enter into the deal. This allegation does not get washed away pursuant to Crl. Revision No. 79/2018 Sandhya Goyal vs. State Page 6 of 7 execution of further agreements. Novation of contract is not applicable to the present case. As on date, there was enough material to show that offence of cheating was made out.
17. However, there was no material to frame charge u/s 467/468 of IPC. There is no evidence that accused Sandhya Goyal has forged the said Will herself. Signature of Sh. Shyam Sunder Goyal have been opined to be forged by the Truth Labs but it does not show that those forged signatures were made by accused Sandhya Goyal or other accused persons. Therefore, charge u/s 467/468 IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore, impugned order is hereby modified and it is held that no charge u/s 467/468 IPC is made out. Since revisionist was possessing the forged Will, charge u/s 474 IPC is justified. Only charges u/s 420/471/474/120B IPC and separately u/s 120-B IPC are made out against the accused/revisionist.
18. Revision petition is partly allowed.
19. A copy of this order be placed in the TCR and same be sent to court concerned immediately.
20. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by
SANJAY SANJAY BANSAL Location: Karkardooma Announced in the open court BANSAL Court Date: 2019.01.21 on 19th day of January, 2019. 16:14:05 +0530 (SANJAY BANSAL) Special Judge (NDPS) / ASJ / NE / KKD Courts / Delhi. Crl. Revision No. 79/2018 Sandhya Goyal vs. State Page 7 of 7