Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Pawar on 4 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. KRITIKA JAIN, JMFC-03, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI CNR No. : DLSW02-071017-2019 FIR No. : 371/2013 U/s : 420/467/471/120B IPC P.S. : Bindapur State v/s Amit Pawar a) Name & address of the complainant : Rajinder Singh Dang S/o Sh. Kartar Singh Dang R/o Flat No. 17/5, SFS Flats, Sector-9, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi. b) Name & address of : Amit Pawar S/o Sh. Prem accused Singh Pawar R/o H. No. B-40, Nanhe Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. : Kanta Rani W/o Sh. Kharati Lal, R/o T-510/15, C-2, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi (already PO). c) Offence complained of : Sections 420/ 467/ 471/ 120B IPC d) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. e) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Manish Kaushik f) Final Order : Acquittal qua accused Amit Pawar g) Date of Institution : 06.04.2019 h) Judgment Pronounced on : 04.04.2025 State v/s Amit Pawar Page 1 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:
1. The complainant has given written complaint whereby he stated that the accused persons in pursuance of criminal conspiracy prepared forged and fabricated documents of plot no. 8, Matiyala Extension, Uttam Nagar, ad-measuring 200 sq. yards in the name of the accused Kanta Rani (already PO) belonging to the complainant Sh. Rajender Singh Dang and on the strength of those documents misrepresented accused Kanta Rani as actual owner of the said property and deceived Sh. Vinod Kumar in entering into sale negotiations for the said plot and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 420/467/471/120-B IPC.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against accused Amit Pawar. After taking cognizance of the offences, the said accused Amit Pawar was summoned to face trial.
3. On appearance of the accused Amit Pawar, copy of charge sheet along with documents was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC').
State v/s Amit Pawar Page 2 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013PS Bindapur
4. After hearing arguments on charge, accused Amit Pawar was for the offence u/s 420/467/471/120-B IPC.
5. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW-1 i.e. Sh. Rajender Singh Dang s/o Late Sh.
Kartar Singh Dang, aged 75 years, R/o House No. 17/S, SFS Flats, Sector 8, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi deposed in his examination in chief that he is residing at the aforementioned address alongwith his family and he is retired from Punjab and Sind Bank as Senior Manager. They are four brothers namely, Manmohan Singh Dang, Paramjit Singh Dang, Gurdeep Singh Dang and he. His mother, late Smt. Raj Kaur bought a plot no. 8 from one Chajju s/o Sh. Surja on 13.06.1973 admeasuring 200 sq. Yards in Khasra no. 16/15/02 and 17/11-12 in Matiala Extension, Matiala, New Delhi-59. The said plot was purchased vide registered sale deed. In the year 1974, they constructed their house in the said plot and started residing their alongwith their family. There were one drawing room, two bed rooms, one kitchen, one Pooja Room for Shree Guru Granth Sahib, one bathroom and one toilet. Thereafter, in the year 1979 they built one big room alongwith one kitchen in the back portion of the said plot. Their family lived in the aforesaid house till 1984. After the communal riots of 1984, they shifted to Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. However, he alongwith his State v/s Amit Pawar Page 3 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur mother used to regularly visit their house in Matiala for looking after the same and occasional cleaning. His mother expired in the year 2008. Thereafter, he alongwith his brothers used to visit the said house in Matiala. They used to deposit house tax of their said house regularly with MCD. They also reported the stray incidents of theft which occurred in their house dated 16.02.1998, 15.05.2001, 19.11.2001, 16.09.2002 and 05.07.2004 to the police station, Matiala. On 25.06.2013, he alongwith his brother, Manmohan Singh Dang and Gurdeep Singh Dang visited the aforesaid house in Matiala and they noticed that there was Peepal tree grown in their house and red colour Moli was tied around the Peepal Tree. There were some god idols placed around the Peepal tree. When they asked about the same from the youngsters who had gathered there and they came to know that one Vinod s/o Dharam Pal had performed Pooja in their house after climbing the 11 feet wall of their house. The said Vinod was residing on the opposite side of their house. At that time, the said Vinod Kumar alongwith one Sonu and 2-3 public persons came to their house. He confronted Vinod qua his act and he responded that they would build temple in their house. They told Vinod that this their house and you cannot commit tresspass and built the temple. Thereafter, they left their house.
State v/s Amit Pawar Page 4 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013PS Bindapur On 30.06.2013, he alongwith his brothers went to police station Bindapur as logis beat officer Raj Kumar asked them to visit the PS. Beat Officer, Raj Kumar told them that one other party is claiming his right over their plot. On 05.07.2013 they filed complaint regarding their grievance to CM, Delhi, DCP, Dwarka and SHO, PS Bindapur after attaching their previous police complaints made regarding thefts at their house. Vinod s/o Dharampal had asked them several time to sell their plot to which they replied that they wanted to reconstruct their house. Thereafter, they started demolishing the old construction of their house by giving contract to one Iqbal Khan and on 22.07.2013, he started demolishing of their house. On the evening of 22.07.2013, Iqbal Khan telephonically informed his brother Gurdeep Singh that some persons came to their property and forcibly stopped demolishing work by saying that the said plot belongs to them. On 27.07.2013, they came to know that some persons had demolished their house with the help of JCB in front of two police officals namely Beat Officer, Raj Kumar and Charan Singh. Thereafter, they received call from beat officer who asked them to visit police station Bindapur with their property documents. Upon this, they reached PS Bindapur and SHO told them that one Balaji Property Dealer and one lady namely, State v/s Amit Pawar Page 5 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur Kanta Rani are claiming their right on their property on the strength of forged and fabricated documents. Thereafter, they handed over the photocopy of their property documents of their house at Matiala to SHO, PS Bindapur. They also handed over other documentary evidence including photocopy of passport of his brother Gurdeep Singh, photocopy of his LIC receipt, photocopy of water bills, photocopy of correspondence with DDA, photocopy of electricity bills, photocopy of condolence letter, all documents are reflecting their residential address at Matiala. On 30.06.2013, they had returned from the PS because other party did not reach at the PS. He had brought the original documents i.e :-
1). Sale deed executed between Chhaju S/o Sh.
Surja and Smt. Raj Kaur (she was his mother who died on 10.12.2008) on dt. 13.06.1973, which is ExPW1/A (OSR);
2). House Tax receipts of the year of 2013-14, 2014- 15, and 2019-2020 of property bearing No. RZ-8, Matiala Extn, Uttam Nagar, same are ExPW1/B (OSR)(colly.);
3). His LIC receipt is ExPW1/C (OSR);
4). Water bill of Property bearing No. RZ-8, Matiala Ext, Uttam Nagar, same are ExPW1/D (OSR);
State v/s Amit Pawar Page 6 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013PS Bindapur
5). Electricity bill of property bearing No. RZ-8, Matiala Extn., Uttam Nagar, same are ExPW1/E (OSR)(colly.);
6). Passport of his brother Gurdeep Sing is ExPW1/F(OSR);
7). Condolence letter is ExPW1/G(OSR);
8). Photocopy of correspondence with DDA is Mark A.
9). Photographs of demolished property bearing No. RZ-8, Matiala Extn., Uttam Nagar is ExP-1 (colly.).
10). Ration card of Smt. Raj Kaur alongwith ration slips are collectively ExPW1/H (OSR).
(ii) PW-2 Sh. Manmohan Singh S/o late Sh. Kartar Singh Dang R/o WZ-350, A/1, Gali no.20, Shiv Nagar, New Delhi deposed in his examination in chief that he is residing at the aforesaid address with his family. They are four brothers and they are living separately. On 13.06.1973, his father late Sh. Kartar Singh Dang had purchased plot of 200 sq. yas Khasra No. 16/15/02, 17/11-12 of village Matiala Extn. Bindapur from Sh. Chajju S/o Sh. Surji through registered deed, who was resided at village Matiala. They had constructed the abovesaid plot in the year 1974. They constructed the said with one nali, two bedroom, one room for Babaji alongwith toilet (lat-bath). They started to live there. In the State v/s Amit Pawar Page 7 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur year 1979 they had constructed one room alongwith kitchen at the back side of the abovementioned plot and they remained there upto 1984. After the violence of 1984, they moved from there to Ramesh Nagar. His mother and brother used to come from Ramesh Nagar for care taking of the above- mentioned plot at Matiala. They had paid the house tax of above-mentioned plot. On 10.12.2008 his mother had expired. Thereafter, his brothers were also used to come at the abovementioned plot for care taking. On 25.06.2013, they all four brother came at above mentioned plot and found one tree of peepal and "puja" were going on the above- mentioned plot by tilak, photos of "devi-devta". Upon asking they came to know it was done by their labour and Vinod stated to them that he had completed puja and he would construct a temple over the said place. They objected upon this and said to Vinod that this plot was belonged to them and how could he do such kind of work. On 30.06.13, police official called them to PS and after reaching, they found that second party was not there and they came back at their residence. Mr. Vinod stated to them that "aapko plot ka kya karna hai, plot humen de do". They objected upon this and replied to him that they wanted to live at aforementioned plot and it was not for sale. On 05.07.13, they made verbal report to PS Bindapur, against Vinod for harassing State v/s Amit Pawar Page 8 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur them. On 22.07.13, they had made a contract to demolish the abovementioned building to Iqbal Khan and upon demolishing, in the evening, some unknown persons came there and stopped demolishing their building and stated that the above- mentioned plot was belonged to them. On 27-07.13 they came to know that the JCB was there which was brought by unknown persons and carried the work of demolition of building. SHO, PS Bindapur called them to PS alongwith ownership documents of abovementioned plot. After visiting at PS Bindapur, Property dealer of Balaji Enterprises and Ms. Kanta Devi had prepared fabricated documents of above-mentioned plot and claiming that they were the owner of the said plot. On 04.11.78, his father had expired at above mentioned plot belong to them. His mother also had expired at above mentioned plot. They wanted to remove the tree from the abovesaid building. On 05.03.2004 they had contacted the officials of MCD for abovementioned tree from their plot. Thereafter, MCD officials had visited at their plot and removed the abovementioned tree from their plot. He could not identify the accused persons as he had not seen them, one of them was property dealer of Balaji Enterprises and second was Ms. Kanta Devi, who were claiming themselves as owner of the abovementioned plot belong to them.
State v/s Amit Pawar Page 9 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013PS Bindapur
(iii) PW-3 i.e. Sh. Krishan, Sr. Assistant, SR-II, Basai Darapur, New Delhi deposed in his examination in chief that he has been deputed by Sub-registrar, Basai Darapur, Delhi and brought the record of documents vide reference letter no.
SR-Il/K.Gate/POL/VER/2018/45 dated 02.11.2018 entry no. 45 (certified copies of documents i.e., GPA R-2166 B-4 Vol. 395, P-198-199 dated 03.11.76 and Notary documents) were taken by HC Ram Kishan dated 12.12.2018. The copy of the same is taken on record and Ex. PW3/A (OSR).
(iv) PW-4 i.e. PW-4 i.e. Inspector Surender Singh deposed in his examination in chief that he was posted at PS Bindapur as SI. The further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He obtained NBW of accused Kanta Rani from the court when she was not traceable. He completed the process of 82 CrPC against accused Kanta. Thereafter he got transferred from PS Bindapur and the case file was handed to MHCR for further investigation.
(v) PW-5 i.e. Sh. Naveen Gandas deposed in his examination in chief that he had brought sale deed of property bearing registration no. Plot no. 8, Khara no. 16/15/2, situated in Matiala Ext, Delhi (area of village Matiala) executed between Chhaju (vendor) and Smt Raj Kaur (vendee) on dt. 13.06.1973 vide State v/s Amit Pawar Page 10 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur registered no. 7829, book no.1, vol. no. 2030 pages no. 165 to 166 registered on dt. 16.06.1973. Same is taken on record and Ex. P-1(OSR) (colly).
(vi) PW-6 i.e. SI Jagdish deposed in his examination in chief that he was posted at PS Bindapur as SI. The further investigation of the present case was marked to him. On 13.03.18, the hon'ble court of Id. MM Sh Kishore Kumar declared absconder to accused Kanta Devi. He recorded statement of witnesses in this regard. He verified the document already placed on record and already ExPW1/A (OSR) including GPA executed between Raj Kaur and Smt Kanta Rani (Mark A) and produced by accused Kanta Devi from Sub registrar-ll, Delhi vide notice u/s 91 CrPC ExPW6/A bearing his signature at point A and reply of Sub registrar is already placed on record in which he found the aforementioned documents did not match from record available in the office of Sub registrar-Il, Basai Darapur ExPW6/B. He tried to trace co accused Manoj Kumar and all efforts were in vain. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet of the present case before the hon'ble court.
(vii) PW-7 i.e. Retd. Si Kuldeep Singh deposed in his examination in chief that he was posted at PS Bindapur as ASI. On 30.06.13, on receipt of DD no. 35B about the cutting of peepal tree at the area of State v/s Amit Pawar Page 11 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur Matiala Extn., he reached at plot no.8 Matiala Extn., but no tree was found there which was being cut. He received the enquiry on complaint of one Kanta Rani. On 02.07.13, accused Kanta Rani alongwith one person namely Amit Pawar (who used to work as property dealer and run office under the name and style of Balaji Property Dealer) came at PS Bindapur and he recorded her statement. She stated that she had purchased plot bearing no. 8 Matiala Extn., in the year of 1976 from Smt. Raj Kaur. However, she had not visited the said plot at any occasion, however, she had let out the said plot to one Sardar. Her husband used to visit the said plot for receiving rent. Her husband had expired about 8- 10 years prior to the date of complaint and she had sold the said plot to someone. She had produced photocopy of documents of said plot (which are already placed on record and already Mark A) vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A and bearing his signature at point A. He also received the documents from complainant Rajender Singh Dang. Same are already placed on record and already ExPW1/A (OSR). He got verified the documents produced by accused Kanta Devi and complainant Rajender Singh Dang from Sub registrar office, Kashmiri Gate vide letter Ex. PW7/1. No record of documents produced by Kanta Devi were found in the office of Sub-registrar and the documents produced by State v/s Amit Pawar Page 12 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur complainant Rajender Singh Dang were found registered. He recorded statement of complainant Rajender Singh Dang already ExPW1/DA and bearing his signature at point A. On 24.04.14, accused Amit Pawar was arrested at his instance. IO SI Jatender Kumar interrogated, arrested and conducted personal search of accused Amit Pawar vide memos Ex. PW7/B to ExPW7/D and bearing his signatures at respectively after conducting his medical examination. IO obtained two days PC of accused Amit Pawar from the court. IO recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW7/E and bearing his signature at point A. Accused was present in the court and was correctly identified by the witness.
(viii) PW-8 i.e. Inspector Jitender Kumar deposed in his examination in chief that he was posted at PS Bindapur as SI. The further investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of the present case. On 14.08.13, he met the complainant Rajender Singh Dang and prepared the site plan of plot bearing no. 8, Matiala Extn., Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and same is Ex. PW8/A and bearing his signature at point A. On 20.08.13, he received certified copy of registered sale deed from Sub registrar-ll, Kashmere Gate, Delhi qua property registration no. 7829 book no.1, Vol. no.2030 pages from 165 to 166 dt. 16.06.73 already ExPW7/A State v/s Amit Pawar Page 13 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur from previous 10 ASI Kuldeep and placed on record. On 24.04.2014, ASI Kuldeep produced the accused Amit Pawar before him at PS Bindapur. He interrogated the accused Amit Pawar and recorded his disclosure statement already ExPW7/B & bearing his signature at point B. He arrested and conducted personal search of accused Amit Pawar vide memos already Ex. PW7/C & ExPW7/D and bearing his signature at point B respectively. Thereafter, he produced the accused Amit Pawar before the court from where he obtained PC of accused Amit Pawar. During the PC of accused Amit Pawar, he again interrogated him & recorded his supplementary disclosure statement already Ex. PW1/E and bearing his signature at point B. He also tried to search co accused persons involved in the present case but none of accused found there. He again produced the accused Amit Pawar before the court from where he was sent to JC. He also examined the PWs and recorded their statement u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he got transferred from PS Bindapur and handed over present case file to MHCR of PS Bindapur for further investigation.
6. Under Section 294 CrPC, accused had admitted the genuineness of the documents i.e. FIR No. 371/2023 without contents along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and DD No. 35B dt. 30.06.2013 which were Ex. A-1(Colly) and Ex. A-2 respectively. Accordingly, the State v/s Amit Pawar Page 14 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur concerned witness i.e. witness at sl. no. 8 was dropped by the prosecution.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of accused Amit Pawar u/s 313 CrPC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him, to which he had denied to be correct and submitted that he was innocent and falsely implicated. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
8. It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof to be adopted in criminal cases is not merely of preponderance of probabilities but proof beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. It is also well settled that in case of doubt, the benefit must necessarily be allowed to the accused.
Legal Position
9. Before analysing the record, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
10. Section 420 IPC: "Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of State v/s Amit Pawar Page 15 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
11. Section 467 IPC: "Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life,or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
12. Section 471 IPC: "Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record".
13. Section 120B IPC: "Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both".
Analysis and Discussion State v/s Amit Pawar Page 16 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur
14. This being a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt of the accused lies upon the prosecution for which the standard required is beyond reasonable doubt. The essential facts pleaded by the prosecution for the offences alleged against the accused persons is that all accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other created forged documents in the name of ownership documents for property bearing number plot no.8, Matiyala Extention,Uttam Nagar, however neither these documents were ever recovered from the accused or from the office of Balaji properties or any connection was established between the accused and the Balaji properties.
15. Further, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to disclose as to whether the accused facing trial had actually forged the signature of the actual owner, that is the complainant or that the deceased Raj Kaur.
16. It is clear from the charge sheet that the prosecution case is based upon the photocopies of the documents and not upon the original documents which have been allegedly forged by the accused.
17. Considering the gravamen of allegations and record, as far as offence of cheating is concerned it is trite that a dishonest inducement is a sine qua non of the offence of cheating. In the present case, there is no allegation against Amit Panwar that he dishonestly induced the complainants in any manner. As the complainant himself stated in his evidence that he did not know the accused and the only allegation was that Balaji property dealer in collusion with State v/s Amit Pawar Page 17 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur Kanta Rani has claimed to be owner of alleged property. However in the entire trial no relation of accused Amit Panwar was proved with the Balaj property dealers. Therefore, the ingredients of section 467/471 are not attracted. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Mohd Ibrahim v State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 in an identical factual situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed :- "An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
10.1) 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 authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.
10.2) 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 10.3) 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 practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
11. In short, a person is said to have made a 'false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.State v/s Amit Pawar Page 18 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013
PS Bindapur
12. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of `false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. 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 authorised 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 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 authorised 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.
18. Section 420 IPC: Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The State v/s Amit Pawar Page 19 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur 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).
19. 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 State v/s Amit Pawar Page 20 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur 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 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.
20. 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 State v/s Amit Pawar Page 21 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur 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." (emphasis supplied)
21. Further, in the examination in chief, PW-1 had stated that some Vinod had performed pooja, however, he has not been examined. Nothing is placed on record which shows that the offence u/s 420/ 471/ 120B IPC was committed by the accused.
22. In the entire prosecution evidence, no incriminating evidence at all has been produced against accused Amit State v/s Amit Pawar Page 22 of 23 FIR No. 371/2013 PS Bindapur Panwar. No evidence has been produced to link accused Amit Panwar with the forgery of the document.
23. Thus, as a cumulative effect of all the points discussed above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour of accused. Accordingly, accused namely Amit Panwar is acquitted of the offence punishable U/Sec. 420/467/471/120B IPC.
24. This judgment contains 23 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
25. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY, i.e., ON 04.04.2025
Digitally signed
by KRITIKA
KRITIKA JAIN
JAIN Date:
2025.04.04
16:03:50 +0530
Kritika Jain
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03
South-West District/New Delhi
04.04.2025
State v/s Amit Pawar Page 23 of 23
FIR No. 371/2013
PS Bindapur