Delhi District Court
State vs H.S.Thapar Etc on 20 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHANU PRATAP SINGH,
JMFC-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST020007742012
CR Cases 95/2/2012 2036329/2016
STATE Vs. H.S.THAPAR ETC
FIR No. 499/2011
PS: Malviya Nagar
JUDGMENT
1) CIS No. of the case : 2036329/2016
2) The date of commission of offence : 2003 (date and time
unknown)
3) The name of the complainant : Sukrat Bajaj
4) The name & parentage of accused : (1)H.S. Thapar
S/o Late Capt. K.S.
Thapar
(2) Vikas Thapar
S/o H.S. Thapar
(3) Manish Thapar
S/o H.S. Thapar
5) Offences involved : Section 420/467/471
IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquittal
8) The date of order : 20.03.2026
FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 1 of 8
Digitally signed
by BHANU
BHANU PRATAP
SINGH
PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2026.03.20
18:42:29
+0530
Date of Institution : 27.06.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 20.03.2026
BRIEF FACTS
01. The case of the prosecution is that Firstly, at some time in the year 2003 at unknown place and time, the accused persons H.S. Thapar, Vikas Thapar and Manish Thapar made false representations to Surender Singh regarding the property no. A-78, Second Floor (with roof rights), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi regarding the property in question being free from encumbrances and an oral partition having been effected between accused persons and their siblings when actually the property in question had already been mortgaged to Kotak Mahinda Bank on 10.01.2000 and no oral partition had taken place between accused and their siblings and these false representations were contained in the registered sale deed executed by accused H.S. Thapar in favour of Surender Singh and on the basis of these representations the accused persons induced Surender Singh to part with consideration amount of Rs. 5 lakh with intention to cause wrongful gain to themselves and further on the basis of these false representations, Surender Singh was deceived to deliver the property in question to the complainant Sukrat Bajaj by registered sale deed dated 23.04.2007 between Surender Singh and Sukrat Bajaj and the complainant Sukrat Bajaj was induced to part with consideration amount of Rs. 09 lakhs for the property in question and the complainant Sukrat Bajaj further had to make the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs to the Kotak Mahindra Bank in order to settle the loan taken by accused persons from the bank and thereby the accused persons committed the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.
FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 2 of 8 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2026.03.20 18:42:35 +0530 Secondly, on unknown date, time and place the accused persons prepared false 'No Objection Certificate' containing the forged signatures of Preetinder Pal Singh and fraudulently or dishonestly used the same as genuine and thereby the accused persons committed offences u/s 467/471 of IPC.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
02. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the IO in the present case. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the Court and the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, charge for commission of offences punishable under Section 420/467/471 IPC was framed upon the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded in which accused persons stated that they want to lead defence evidence. Thereafter defence witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged and defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, the case was listed for final arguments. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties.
FINAL ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES
03. It was argued by the accused persons that no false representation or inducement was made by the accused persons to Surender Singh or Sukrat Bajaj regarding the property in question. It is further argued by the accused persons that accused persons did not deceive Surender Singh or the complainant Sukrat Bajaj in the present case. It was further argued that accused persons did not FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 3 of 8 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2026.03.20 18:42:41 +0530 prepare any false NOC and did not use any forged NOC as genuine.
04. It was argued by the counsel for complainant that the accused persons made false representation to Surender Singh with respect to the property in question and the accused also made false representation in the sale document between H.S. Thapar and Surender Singh. It was further argued that the subsequent sale deed executed between Surender Singh and complainant Sukrat Bajaj reproduces the same false recital as Surender Singh merely repeated the representations of the accused and therefore the accused persons committed the offence of cheating by suppressing encumbrances and outstanding loan liabilities. It was further argued by the complainant that the accused persons committed the offence of forgery and used forged document as genuine.
REASONS FOR DECISION
05. In order to prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 Sukrat Bajaj, PW2 Pyar Singh Negi, PW3 Manish Gupta, PW4 HC Manoj Kumar, PW5 Arjun Swarup, PW6 Inspector Narender Kumar, PW7 SI Deepak Kumar, PW8 Vibhuti Beniwal, PW9 Preeti Chaudhary and PW10 ASI Jitender.
The witness Surender Singh was not examined in the present case as he had expired and therefore he was dropped from the list of witnesses by order dated 13.05.2022 of this Court.
06. PW1 Sukrat Bajaj stated in his examination in chief dated 16.08.2018 that in the month April, 2007 he had purchased the Second Floor along with roof rights of property bearing no. A-78, Malviya Nagar from Mr. Surender Singh and after purchasing the property PW1 learnt that there was a pending bank loan on the said property raised by H.S. Thapar, Manish Thapar FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 4 of 8 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
2026.03.20 SINGH 18:42:46 +0530 and Vikas Thapar. PW1 further stated that officials of the bank came to take possession of the property with a Court order and PW1 was left with no option but to pay up the said loan to protect his property and in the year 2009 he paid up the said loan to protect the said property. PW1 further stated that upon paying up the loan the bank provided him with the loan agreement along with several other documents such as the registered partition deed and an NOC used to obtain the said loan. PW1 further stated that thereafter he hired an investigating agency to find out the facts regarding the said loan and they brought to his attention that H.S. Thapar, Manish Thapar and Vikas Thapar who had sold the property to Mr. Surender Singh in 2003 with the assurances that the said property was free from all encumbrances had mortgaged the property in the year 2000.
07. Perusal of the above testimony of PW1 shows that PW1 had never met the accused persons at any point of time regarding the property in question.
Further it is evident that there is no agreement between the accused persons and the complainant regarding the property in question. Further it is evident that PW1 is not a witness to any communication between accused persons and Surender Singh in the year 2003 regarding the property in question. Further it is evident that PW1 is not a witness to any alleged representation or alleged inducement by accused persons to Surender Singh. Further it is evident that PW1 did not pay any consideration amount to the accused persons. Further it is evident that PW1 had dealt with only Surender Singh regarding the property in question. Further PW1 Sukrat Bajaj was given the possession of the property by Surender Singh as stated by PW1 in his cross-examination dated 31.03.2022. Therefore, it is evident that there was no transaction between the accused persons and PW1 Sukrat Bajaj regarding the property in question.
FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 5 of 8 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
2026.03.20 SINGH 18:42:52 +0530
08. Therefore on perusal of the testimony of PW1, this Court is of the view that the accused persons did not make any representation or inducement or deception to PW1 Sukrat Bajaj and did not enter into any transaction with PW1 Sukrat Bajaj. Further this Court is of the view that PW1 Sukrat Bajaj / complainant is not a witness to prove the fact that accused made false representation or induced or deceived Surender Singh to part with consideration amount of Rs. 5 lakh. Further PW1 is not a witness to prove the fact that Surender Singh was deceived by the accused persons to deliver the property in question to the complainant. Further it is evident that Surender Singh was the person who could have deposed regarding the communication or transaction between the accused persons and Surender Singh with respect to the property in question, but Surender Singh was not examined in the present case and was dropped from the list of witness as he had expired. Further there is no other witness of the communication or dealing between the accused persons and Surender Singh. Therefore on perusal of the testimony of PW1 this Court is of the view that testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution as he is not a witness to any communication or transaction between accused persons and Surender Singh.
09. PW3 Manish Gupta, Sr. Vice President, Kotak Mahindra Bank deposed regarding disbursement of loan of Rs. 40 lakh to the accused persons and as per PW3 the loan was secured by creation of mortgaged property namely A-78, Second and Third Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi by accused namely H.S. Thapar. Perusal of testimony of PW3 shows that PW3 is not a witness to any transaction or communication between accused persons and Surender Singh. Therefore, the testimony of PW3 is not sufficient to prove that accused persons induced or deceived Surender Singh to part with consideration amount FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 6 of 8 Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2026.03.20 18:42:57 +0530 of Rs. 5 lakhs. Further testimony of PW3 is not sufficient to prove that the accused persons deceived Surender Singh to deliver the property in question to complainant Sukrat Bajaj.
10. Perusal of testimony of PW4 HC Manoj Kumar shows that HC Manoj Kumar was a witness to the arrest and personal search of the accused H.S. Thapar and Manish Thapar. PW4 did not depose regarding recovery of any forged document or any other incriminating document from the accused persons. Therefore, it is evident that no forged document or incriminating document was recovered from the accused persons.
11. PW6 Inspector Narender Kumar stated in his cross-examination dated 05.08.2023 that he got specimen signatures of P.S. Thapar and Narender Kaur Thapar. From the testimony of PW6, it is evident that specimen handwriting of accused persons were not taken to compare with the alleged forged signatures of Preetinder Pal Singh. Further Preetinder Pal Singh was not made a prosecution witness qua NOC in order to prove forgery of his sign on NOC. From the perusal of testimony of PW6, it is evident that PW6 failed to produce any evidence on record to show that the accused persons prepared a false NOC or fraudulently or dishonestly used the same as genuine. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the testimony of PW6 Inspector Narender Kumar is not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution.
12. PW9 Preeti Chaudhary, SSO, Documents, FSL Rohini stated in her testimony that as per the FSL report Ex.PW8/A, the questioned signature of Preetinder Singh marked as Q-1 and questioned signature of Narender Kaur marked as Q-2 are forged in nature as these signatures were not made by the original person and some other person had made the signatures on the above said documents.
FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 7 of 8 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2026.03.20 18:43:05 +0530
13. This Court is of the view that the testimony of PW9 Preeti Chaudhary, SSO Documents, FSL Rohini by itself is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution as it does not incriminate the accused persons. Further there is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons forged the signature of Preetinder Pal Singh. Therefore this Court is of the view that there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused persons prepared a false NOC and fraudulently or dishonestly used the same as genuine.
CONCLUSION:
14. In view of the above reasons, this Court has arrived to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the present case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons H.S. Thapar, Vikas Thapar and Manish Thapar are not guilty for the offences u/s 420/467/471 of IPC Therefore, accused persons H.S. Thapar, Vikas Thapar and Manish Thapar stand acquitted for the offences u/s 420/467/471 of IPC.Digitally signed
BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
Announced in open court SINGH 2026.03.20
18:43:11 +0530
on 20.03.2026.
(BHANU PRATAP SINGH)
JMFC-02(South)/Saket Courts
New Delhi/20.03.2026
FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 8 of 8