Delhi District Court
Sh. Surender Kumar Arora vs The State on 18 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number: 79/2014
Unique ID No. 02406R0325912014
Sh. Surender Kumar Arora,
Son of Sh. Jyoti Swaroop Arora,
R/o Flat No. 194, Geeta Apartments,
Block No. 17, Geeta Colony,
Delhi. ...........................Revisionist
versus
The State ...........................Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 25.11.2014
Date of Allocation : 26.11.2014
Date of conclusion of arguments : 29.01.2016
Date of Judgment : 18.03.2016
Particulars related to impugned order
FIR No. : 380/2001
PS : Hauz Khas
Date of impugned order : 02.09.2014 & 05.11.2014
Name of learned Trial Court : Sh. Vivek Gulia,
CMM, South, Saket.
Memo of Appearance
Sh. Puneet Ahluwalia, counsel for Revisionist.
Sh. R.S. Negi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent.
Surender Kumar Arora Vs State CR No. 79/2014 Page 1 of 7
JUDGMENT
1 The present is a judicial verdict on the revision petition filed u/s 397 Cr.P.C. against impugned orders, dated 02.09.2014 and 05.11.2014, passed by the learned trial court.
2 Brief facts of the case are that after the murder of Sh. Y.K. Kaul and his wife Madhuri Kaul, who were registered owner of property No. W-3, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi, an anonymous complaint was given that some persons, in collusion with police, are trying to grab the aforesaid property. During the investigation, it was found that a case FIR No. 107/87, PS Greater Kailash-1 was registered in respect of murder of aforesaid couple who did not leave any Will in respect of their property in Delhi and village Nanuera, District Gurgaon. It was found that a probate case No. 33/89 was filed in High Court by Government of NCT of Delhi for grant of letter of administration in respect of said property. It was found that accused Madanjit Singh had also filed probate case No. 296/99 for grant of probate in respect of Will, dated 18.01.85, allegedly executed by deceased Y.K. Kaul in his name. Certain forged documents were recovered. It was alleged that accused Surender Kumar Arora prepared forged documents at the instance of accused Madanjeet Singh and Swamy Vikramanand and forged seals, stamp papers and photocopy of Will of Y.K. Kaul in the name of accused Madanjeet Singh were also recovered.
3 Police filed the charge sheet in the court. After hearing the arguments on charge, accused Y.L. Sachdeva, Jaiveer Nagar, Atma Ram Gupta and accused R.R. Shakia were discharged and learned trial court ordered for framing of charges u/s 120-B, 473, 474 IPC vide orders, dated 02.09.2014 against the revisionist and framed charges on 05.11.2014.
Surender Kumar Arora Vs State CR No. 79/2014 Page 2 of 7Feeling aggrieved of the same, revisionist has filed the present revision petition.
4 I have heard arguments and have gone through the material available on record.
5 In the present matter, it has been contended on behalf of accused/revisionist, namely, Surender Kumar Arora, that there was no material before the learned trial court for ordering framing of charge against him. It has been contended that there was merely recovery of photocopy of the alleged forged Will from the possession of the accused Surender Kumar Arora. Further, there are allegations that certain forged stamp papers were recovered from the possession of accused Surender Kumar Arora. It has been contended that these facts are not sufficient to order for framing of charge u/s 120/473/474 IPC. It has been argued that there is nothing on record file to show that accused Surender Kumar Arora was instrumental in making of the alleged Will.
6 In the present matter, the accused/revisionist Surender Kumar Arora is stated to be stamp vendor at the relevant time. As per the stand taken on behalf of learned counsel for revisionist, there is recovery of photocopy of the alleged forged Will. There is nothing on the record file to show that accused, Surender Kumar Arora, had been instrumental in the making of the said Will. There is no document on the record file to show that accused, namely, Surender Kumar Arora had helped in the formation of the alleged forged Will. Mere recovery of some stamp papers, at the instance of accused, Surender Kumar Arora, or mere recovery of the photocopy of the alleged forged Will cannot be a ground for framing of charge against accused Surender Kumar Arora. Further, the said photocopies, alleged to have been Surender Kumar Arora Vs State CR No. 79/2014 Page 3 of 7 recovered as per recovery memo, dated 08.10.2001, are not sufficient to show that accused Surender Kumar Arora had, at any point of time, conspired with other co-accused in making of the said Will.
7 On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Additional PP for the State that the impugned order has rightly been passed by the learned Trial Court. It has further been contended that learned Trial Court has not committed any error by framing the charge against the revisionist. It has been argued that the present revision petition be dismissed.
8 In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366(1), it has been held as under :-
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges, under section 227 of the Code, has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceedings with the trial.
(3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code Surender Kumar Arora Vs State CR No. 79/2014 Page 4 of 7 of the Judge, which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mount-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
9 The principles enumerated in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366(1), are equally applicable to the cases triable by the court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Learned Magistrate has to see if there is, prima facie, sufficient material for framing charge against the accused. If it is so, the learned trial court is fully justified in framing the charge against the accused persons.
10 Thus in view of the above observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that if there is, Prima facie, sufficient material to frame the charge against the accused, then, charge can be framed against him. If, however, if there is not, Prima Facie, sufficient material to incriminate the accused with the allegations, which he is alleged to have committed, the accused should be discharged.
11 The relevant part of the impugned order of the learned trial court, so far as the accused, Surender Kumar Arora is concerned, is produced herein below:-
Surender Kumar Arora Vs State CR No. 79/2014 Page 5 of 7"Evidence has been collected to the effect that Surender Kumar Arora was found in possession of several non-judicial forged stamp papers, some of which were over 30 years old, with seal of stamp vendors who sold them without mentioning the name of purchaser. Further, he was found in possession of forged stamps of different stamp vendors and photocopy of forged Will of Sh. Y.K. Kaul in the name of Madanjeet Singh. Thus, it is clear that he was also part of conspiracy whereby forged documents were used to grab the property and kept forged documents to misuse them."
12 It may be mentioned that there was nothing on the record file before the learned trial court to show that accused, Surender Kumar Arora, was in any way involved in any conspiracy regarding preparation of alleged forged Will. There is nothing on the record file to show that alleged forged Will was prepared by Surender Kumar Arora or by some other person at his instance. Thus, there was no material before the learned trial court to show that there was any conspiracy between accused Surender Kumar Arora, so far as the present case is concerned. Further, there is nothing on the record file to, prima facie, attract the ingredients of the section 473/474 IPC. Mere possession of certain non-judicial stamp papers as well as mere possession of photocopy of some Will does not, prima facie, show that accused Surendere Kumar Arora was in conspiracy with other accused persons. There is no material on record file to show even, prima facie, that there was any material to frame charge against accused Surender Kumar Arora u/s 120B/473/474 IPC.
Surender Kumar Arora Vs State CR No. 79/2014 Page 6 of 713 Further, it may be mentioned that co-accused, namely, Y.L. Sachdeva, Atma Ram Gupta, Jaiveer Nagar and R.R. Shakia have already been ordered to be discharged by the learned trial court vide its order, dated 02.09.2014.
14 In view of these facts, I am of the considered view that there was, prima facie, no material before the learned trial court to order for framing of charge against accused, Surender Kumar Arora u/s 120B/473/474 IPC.
15 In view of these facts, accused, Surender Kumar Arora, is ordered to be discharged u/s 120B/473/474 IPC.
16 Revisions petition stands disposed of.
17 A copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court along with the trial court record.
18 File related to revision petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (RAMESH KUMAR)
on this 18th day of March 2016 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi
Surender Kumar Arora Vs State CR No. 79/2014 Page 7 of 7