Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Tyagi Etc on 4 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT KARAN SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT02-000930-2011
CIS No. 67741/2016
State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors
FIR No. 111/10
PS. Ranhola
U/s. 420/468/471/323/341/380/448/454/506/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) The date of commission of offence : 22.02.2010
2) The name of the complainant : Sachida Nand Sharma
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1. Rakesh Tyagi S/o Sh. Dal Chand Tyagi, R/o Village Jhatikra, PS Chawla.
2. Som Dutt S/o Sh. Chander Bhan Tyagi, R/o 199, Village Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, Delhi (since deceased)
3. Virender Tyagi S/o Sh. Nanak Chand Tyagi, R/o 270, Village Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
4. Bimla W/o Raj Kumar, R/o RZ-14A, Deepak Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
5. Binod Singh S/o Sh. Trilok Singh, R/o RZ-14A, Deepak Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
4) Offence complained of : u/s 420/468/471/323/341/380/448
/454/506/34 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 04.09.2025
State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 1/21
Date of Institution : 09.07.2011
Final Arguments heard on : 03.06.2025
Judgment reserved on : 03.06.2025
Judgment announced on : 04.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1) The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on
22.02.2010, at unknown time at H. No. B-55, Press Encalve, Vikas Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ranhola, Delhi, all accused alongwith accomplices namely Ganesh Dutt Joshi and Nand Balabh (both not traceable) with intent to cause damage or injury or support your claim to the aforesaid property for defrauding the complainant Sachida Nand Sharma and used the said forged documents as genuine knowingly that same are forged one for showing your claim and by deceiving him, dishonestly induced him to make a payment of Rs. 16 lacs. Thereby all accused charged with an offence punishable U/s 420/468/471/34 IPC. It is the further the case of the prosecution that accused persons is that on the above said date, time and place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ranhola, all accused persons namely (1) Rakesh Tyagi (2) Som Dutt Tyagi (3) Virender Tyagi alongwith your accomplices namely Ganesh Dutt Joshi and Nand Balabh in furtherance of your common Intention gave beatings to the complainant and also committed criminal tress pass and house breaking in the above said house of above said complainant and committed theft of his house hold articles and also criminally threatened him of life and also wrongfully restrained him. Thereby all accused charged with an offences punishable U/s 323/341/380/448/454/506/34 IPC.
2) After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons. The copy of charge-sheet was supplied to all the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, charge was framed against all the accused persons under Section 420/468/471/323/341/380/448/454/506/34 IPC to which all accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In support of its version, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses. All the accused persons admitted as per section 294 Cr.PC, the factum as to the FSL report State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 2/21 no.2011/D3678 is Ex. X1. The documents were admitted and the concerned witnesses were dropped.
4) After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of all the accused persons were recorded separately wherein accused persons claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against them. All accused persons opted not to lead DE.
5) I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
6) The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are being touched upon, in brief, as follows:-
6.1) PW1 Sh. Devender Kumar, Junior Assistant Sub Registrar-II, Basai Darapur, Delhi deposed that PW1 has been deputed by the Sub Registrar -II Basai Darapur to prove the record of will registration no. 37142, will register no. 1280 dt. 22.02.2010, GPA Registration no. 7994 dt. 30.05.2008, Will registration no. 6807 dt 30.05.2008, will registration no. 7686 dt. 25.06.2008, Will Registration no. 1272 dt. 22.02.2010. It is further stated by PW1 that PW1 has to submit that the summoned were received by SR pertain to SR-II Janakpuri but the record of SR-II Janak puri have been transfered to the SR-II Basai Dara Pur. It is further stated by PW1 that PW1 has brought the certified true copies of , will register no. 1280 dt. 22.02.2010 (additional book no. 3 vol no. 7798 on page 107-108 on dt. 22.02.2010) EX PW-
1/A(OSR), GPA Registration no. 7994 dt. 30.05.2008 (book no.4 vol 1-157 on page 160-162dt. 30.05.2008)EX PW-1/b(OSR), Will registration no. 6807 dt, 30.05.2008 ( book no. 3 vol 7610 on page 148-149 dt, 30.05.2008) EX PW- 1/C(OSR), Will Registration no. 1272 dt. 22.02.2010( addition book no.3 vol 7798 on page 91-92 on dt. 22.02.2010) EX PW-1/D(OSR). It is further stated by PW1 that PW1 has not brought the certified true copy of will registration no. 37142 and will registration no. 7686 dt. 25.06.2008 as will registration no. 7686 is not in our record and will registration no. 37142 does not mention the date or the book no. and therefore it could not be found out. It is further stated by PW1 that there is no will registration with no. 7686 dt. 25.06.2008 and thereafter PW1 deposed that it seems a typographical error and it is 7696 dt. 25.06.2008.
State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 3/21 6.2) PW2 Sh. Arun Kumar deposed that PW2 is residing at the given address along-with his family. It is further stated by PW2 that in the year 1996, PW2 was working as a property dealer in the area of Uttam Nagar, Delhi. It is further stated by PW2 that in plot no. B-55, Gali no. 9, Press enclave, one Rajiv and Rajkumar used to live there and after some time Rajiv And Rajkumar had died in accident and the possession of the plot in question was left with accused Smt. Bimla. It is further stated by PW2 that on 22.02.2010, the complainant namely Sh. Sachidanand Sharma had purchased this plot in question from Sh. Ganesh Dutt Joshi. It is further stated by PW2 that on 29.03.2010, at about 9-10 AM, the accused Rakesh Tyagi came at the plot in question along with 10-12 persons. It is further stated by PW2 that PW2 does not remember the name of the persons who came with accused Rakesh Tyagi at this time. It is further stated by PW2 that they broken the lock of plot in question and took possession of the plot in question forcibly. It is further stated by PW2 that IO recorded his statement during the course of investigation. 6.3) PW3 Sh. Kailash Chand Dixit deposed that PW3 is residing at the above mentioned address along-with his family. It is further stated by PW3 that PW3 has appeared before the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of summons. It is further stated by PW3 that PW3 has a very limited knowledge of the present case. It is further stated by PW3 that PW3 knew that some Sharma Ji's plot was involved in the present case. It is further stated by PW3 that IO did not record his statement at any point of time. Thereafter, Ld. APP for the state sought permission to cross examine the witness as witness was not disclosing the true fact and in cross examination PW3 stated that PW3 knew the complainant Sh. Sachidanand Sharma. The distance between his home and Sh. Sachidanand home is about 400 mtrs. The distance between the house of complainant and the plot of question is about 250-300 mtrs. PW3 has no personal knowledge whether the plot in question was involved in the present case or not. PW3 denied the suggestion that he has been tutored by the accused persons as above. PW3 further stated that PW3 is acquainted with plot no. B-55, Gali no. 9, Press Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. PW3 did not know as to who was living in the said plot at the time of incident. PW3 denied the State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 4/21 suggest that Sh. Sachidanand Sharma was residing in plot in question. PW3 never saw the complainant namely Sh. Sachidanand Sharma living at the plot in question. PW3 did not know the accused persons. PW3 did not see the accused Rakesh Tyagi and Virender Tyagi, breaking open the lock of plot in question or forcibly entering in the said plot. PW3 denied the suggestion that PW3 told the IO that accused Rakesh Tyagi and Virender Tyagi took forcible possession of the plot in question and also broken the lock. PW3 denied the suggestion that IO recorded his statement. PW3 refused to identify the accused persons. Attention of the witness is drawn toward accused Rakesh Tyagi and Virender Tyagi who were present in this court and witness deposed that he has never seen the accused persons. PW3 denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons or that PW3 is deposing falsely at the instance of accused persons namely Rakesh Tyagi and Virender Tyagi or that PW3 is deliberately not identifying them. 6.4) PW4 Sh. Asgar Ali deposed that on PW4 is residing at the given address along-with his family. It is further stated by PW4 that in the year 1996, Plot no. B- 55, Gali no. 9, Press enclave was purchased by one Rajiv and Rajkumar and they used to live there and after some time Rajiv and Rajkumar had died in accident and the possession of the plot in question was left with accused Smt. Bimla. It is further stated by PW4 that on 22.02.2010, the complainant namely Sh. Sachidanand Sharma had purchased this plot in question and also taken its possession and thereafter locked it. It is further stated by PW4 that on 29.03.2010, at about 9-10 AM, the accused Rakesh Tyagi alongwith his associated came at the plot in question and broken open the lock. It is further stated by PW4 that they broken the lock of plot in question and took possession of the plot in question forcibly. It is further stated by PW4 that accused persons Rakesh Tyagi, Virender Tyagi and deceased Som Dutt Tyagi were involved in taking the forcible possession of the plot in question. It is further stated by PW4 that IO recorded his statement during the course of investigation.
6.5) PW5 Sh. Neeraj Tyagi deposed that on 20.04.2011, PW5 was present at Village Jhatikra and PW5 got to know that accused Rakesh Tyagi was present at the State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 5/21 Ashram. It is further stated by PW5 that PW5 called on 100 number and after sometime SI Hari Singh reached the spot and took PW5 and accused Rakesh Tyagi to PS Chawla. It is further stated by PW5 that in some time, the IO of PS Ranhola also reached the spot and arrested the accused in his presence vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/B. It is further stated by PW5 that IO recorded his statement and releaved from the investigation. 6.6) PW6 Sh. Chaman Lal, Record Keeper, Sub Registrar-II, Basai Dara Pur, Delhi deposed that PW6 has appeared before the Hon'ble Court in persuance of summons to bring the record pertain to WILL vide registered number 7142 dated 11.06.2008 Executed between Sh. Devender Kumar Chawla in favour of Sh. Jitender Kumar Chawla for property bearing number WZ-51, 50 Sqy, out of khasra no. 80/4 of Village Hasthsal, Nawada Extension, Om vihar Ph-5, Uttam Nagar, Delhi bearing of signature of the then Sub Registrar SR-II, Janak Puri, Delh at point A on respective pages. It is further stated by PW4 that (Ex. PW-6/A OSR) WILL vide registered number 1280 dated 22.02.2010 executed between Sh. Parkash Chand Sharma in favour of Sh. Rakesh S/o Sh. Dal Chand for property bearing number plot no. 55, 150 Sqy, out of khasra no. 29/17/1 of Village Hasthsal, Vikas Nagar Extension, Part-3, Uttam Nagar, Delhi bearing of signature of the then Sub Registrar SR-II, Janak Puri, Delh at point A on respective pages(Ex. PW-6/B OSR) GPA vide registered number 7994 dated 30.05.2008, executed between Smt. Bimla in favour of Sh. Vinod for property bearing number plot no. 55, 150 Sqy, out of khasra no. 29/17/1 of Village Hasthsal, Vikas Nagar Extension, Part-3, Uttam Nagar, Delhi bearing of signature of the then Sub Registrar SR-II, Janak Puri, Delh at point A on respective pages (Ex. PW-6/C OSR) WILL vide registered number 6807, executed between Smt. Bimla in favour of Sh. Vinod for property bearing number plot no. 55, 150 Sqy, out of khasra no. 29/17/1 of Village Hasthsal, Vikas Nagar Extension, Part-3, Uttam Nagar, Delhi bearing of signature of the then Sub Registrar SR-II, Janak Puri, Delhi at point A on respective pages, (Ex. PW-6/D OSR) WILL vide registered number 1272 dated 22.02.2010, executed between Sh. Ganesh Dutt joshi in favour of Sh. Sachidanand for property bearing number plot State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 6/21 no. 55, 150 Sqy, out of khasra no. 29/17/1 of Village Hasthsal, Vikas Nagar Extension, Part-3, Uttam Nagar, Delhi bearing of signature of the then Sub Registrar SR-II, Janak Puri, Delhi at point A on respective pages (Ex. PW-6/E OSR) and WILL vide registered number 7696 dated 25.06.2008, executed between Sh. Vinod in favour of Sh. Ganesh Dutt joshi for property bearing number plot no. 55, 150 Sqy, out of khasra no. 29/17/1 of Village Hasthsal, Vikas Nagar Extension, Part-3, Uttam Nagar, Delhi bearing of signature of the then Sub Registrar SR-II, Janak Puri, Delhi at point A on respective pages (Ex. PW-6/F OSR). It is further stated by PW6 that PW6 has identify the signatures of the then Sub registrar, SR-II Janak Puri, Delhi on the basis of official records maintained in our office. 6.7) PW7 Sh. Ram Kumar Khatri deposed that PW7 was appointed as notary public by Government of India vide registeration no. 740 from 1997 till 19 th April 2010. Witness is shown a documents dated 03.10.2010 i.e. an Agreement of sell between Raj kumar and Parkash chand and Bimla Devi W/o Sh. Raj Kumar to sell the property/plot bearing no. 55 land measuring 150 sqards out of kh. No. 29/17/1 of village Hasthsal, Uttam Nagar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. After seen the document, the witness states that he has not notorized this particular documents and that he has never attested or put his notary seal on the said documents and the same was stated in my statement u/s 161 Cr. PC when the IO had recorded at the time of investigation. It is further stated by PW7 that PW7 cannot produce his seal as after my tenure of being notary public, I had to destroy the same as per government rule. It is further stated by PW7 that the said documents is marked as Mark P-7. 6.8) PW8 Sh. Dinesh Sharma deposed that PW8 sold his plot bearing no. 55 measring 150 sq yards out of kh. no. 29/17/1 situtated village Hasthsal, Vikas Nagar, extension part-III, Delhi to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Rajiv Kumar S/o Sh. Parkash on 26.04.1996. It is further stated by PW8 that the said GPA and aggreement to sell is now Ex. PW-8/A bearing my signature at point A (colly 02 pages). It is further stated by PW8 that the will regarding the same is already Ex. PW-1/F (OSR) bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW8 that PW8 had otained above said plot from Smt. Raj Kumari. It is further stated by PW8 State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 7/21 that the police official had met me regarding the present case and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC.
6.9) PW9 Sh. Dharambir Sharma deposed that PW-9 was doing the building material work. It is further stated by PW9 that PW9 introuduced Sh. Dinesh Kumar to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Rajiv Kumar S/o Sh. Parkash Chand. Sh. Dinesh Kuamr sold his plot bearing no. 55 measring 150 sq yards out of kh. no. 29/17/1 situtated village Hasthsal, Vikas Nagar, extension part-III, Delhi to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Rajiv Kumar S/o Sh. Parkash on 26.04.1996. Both Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Rajiv Kumar expired later on and before passing away they did not sell the property to anyone else as per my knowledge.
6.10) PW10 Sh. O.P. Choudhary deposed that PW10 is notary public having registeration number 1468 since 1999. It is further stated by PW10 that PW10 is here to state that the GPA by Sh. Parkash Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Sant Ram in favour of Sh. Rakesh S/o Sh. Dal Chand was not notarized by me and does not pertain his seal and attestation. It is further stated by PW10 that the same documents are now Ex. PW-10/A (Colly). It is further stated by PW10 that PW10 further state that the agreeement to sell documents between Smt. Bimla Devi and Sh. Vinod have been notarized by me pertaining my seal and attestation. It is further stated by PW10 that the same documents is exhibited as Ex. PW-10/B (colly) having seal at point A on each pages.
6.11) PW11 ASI Shriom deposed that on 20.04.2010, PW11 was present as a Ct. at PS Ranhola, Delhi. It is further stated by PW11 that PW11 alongwith IO went at PS Chawala, Delhi where they found accused Rakesh Tyagi S/o Sh. Dal Chand. It is further stated by PW11 that IO interogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-5/A and conducted his personal search memo already Ex. PW-5/B. It is further stated by PW11 that thereafter, they all came back at the PS and recored the discloure statement of accused Rakesh Tyagi now Ex. PW-11/A. It is further stated by PW11 that IO recorded his statement and PW11 was discharged from the present matter. Thereafter, ld. APP for the state seeks permission of the court to cross examine the witness and PW11 stated that IO prepared the arrest memo and State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 8/21 disclosure statement in PS Chhawla.
6.12) PW12 W/HC Surekha Rani deposed that on 01.07.2011, PW12 was present as a W/Ct. at PS Ranhola, Delhi. It is further stated by PW12 that PW12 joined the investigation SI Amit Dutt, PW12 alongwith IO and Ct. Parmod wen to the Z-14A Deepak Vihar, Delhi where they met accused Vind and Bimla. It is further stated by PW12 that IO interogated them and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. PW-12/A & Ex. PW-12/B and PW12 conducted the personal search of accused Bimla Ex. PW- 12/C and Ct. Parmod conducted the personal search of accused Vinod. It is further stated by PW12 that thereafter, IO reocorded the discloure statement of both the accused persons Ex. PW-12/D and Ex. PW-12/E. It is further stated by PW12 that the younger brother of accused Vinod handed over the copy of death certificate of his father. It is further stated by PW12 that IO seized the same vide memo Ex. PW- 12/F. It is further stated by PW12 that accused Bimla handed over the her marriage photograph to IO and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW-12/G. It is further stated by PW12 that after the medical examination from SGM Hospital and both of them were produced before the concerned court and sent to J/C. It is further stated by PW12 that IO recorded his statement and PW12 was discharged from the present matter.
6.13) PW13 ASI Parmod deposed that on 01.07.2011, PW13 was posted as a Constable at PS Ranhola, Delhi. It is further stated by PW13 that PW13 alongwith SI Amit Dutt and W/ct. Surekha went to house of accused Vinod Singh Rawat and Bimla Devi which was at Z-14A, Deepak Vihar, Utttam Nagar, Delhi. It is further stated by PW13 that when they reached there, they met with both the accused at above mentioned address. It is further stated by PW13 that thereafter, IO interrogated both the accused persons and personal search of accused Vinod Singh Rawat was conducted vide memo Ex. PW13/A. It is further stated by PW13 that the personal search of the accused Bimla devi was conducted by W/Ct. Surekha. It is further stated by PW13 that thereafter, both the accused were arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-12/B both bearing my signature at point B respectively. It is further stated by PW13 that there after IO recorded disclosure State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 9/21 statement of both the accused persons vide memo already Ex. PW-12/C and Ex. PW-12/D both bearing my signature at point B respectively. It is further stated by PW13 that the younger brother of accused Vindo handed over the copy of the death certificate of his father which the IO seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-12/F bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW13 that accused Bimla also handed over her marriage photograph and same was seized vide memo already Ex. PW-12/G. It is further stated by PW13 that thereafter, both the accused persons were taken for medically examination at SGM Hospital, Delhi and were produced before the concerned court and sent for judicial custody. It is further stated by PW13 that the two photographs are now Ex. P.Z (colly). It is further stated by PW13 that the witness after seeing the photographs states that they are same photographs which was handed over to IO by the accused Bimla.
6.14) PW14 Ravinder Deputy Secretary Finance, Delhi Secretariat deposed that PW14 was collector of stamps (HQ)/SDM(HQ)-II since May 2010 to June 2012. It is further stated by PW14 that the below mentioned letter was received in his office dated 06.04.2011 which was sent by SI Sudhir Kumar regarding the verification of stamp paper having number 25638, 25639 and 25640 and the stamp paper serial number 38576, 38577 and 38578 dated 06.04.2011 respectively. It is further stated by PW14 that the said letter is now Ex. PW-14/A & Ex. PW-14/B for which PW14 had sent his reply vide letter dated 21.04.2011 vide number F- 21/1(7)/COS/HQ/06/11959 & F-21/1(7)/COS/HQ/06/13451 dated 13.06.2011 were undersigned by PW. It is further stated by PW14 that the said letter are now exhibited as Ex. PW-14/C and Ex. PW-14/D having my signature at point A respectively. It is further stated by PW14 that PW14 had also sent a letter to SI Sudhir Kumar regarding the information about the stamp in the present matter vide letter dated 09.06.2011 which are now Ex. PW-14/E. 6.15) PW15 HC Jagdish Parsad deposed that on 04.04.2011, PW15 was posted as a HC in the PS Ranhola, Delhi. It is further stated by PW15 that PW15 alongwith SI Surjeet reached at H.No. 199 Village, Hasthasal Delhi which was the house of Som Dutt Tyagi. It is further stated by PW15 that thereafter, IO arrested the accused State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 10/21 Somdutt Tyagi at the instance of complainant which is now Ex. PW-15/A. It is further stated by PW15 that thereafter, the personal search memo is Ex. PW-15/B bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW15 that thereafter, the accused Som Dutt Tyagi and complainant were taken to the residence of accused Virender Tyagi at H.No. 270 Village Hasthsal, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and Virender Tyagi got arrested at the instance of the complainant vide arrest memo Ex. PW-15/C bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW15 that thereafter, the personal search memo is Ex. PW-15/D bearing my signature at point A. 6.16) PW16 Retd. ASI Pardeep deposed that on 01.05.2010. It is further stated by PW16 that PW16 was posted at PS Ranhola as Duty officer. It is further stated by PW16 that on that day, SHO had handed over the original tehrir to PW16 for the registeration of FIR and PW16 have registered the FIR and endroese the dd number 32A which is now Ex. PW-16/B bearing my signature at point A and after the registeration of FIR PW16 handed over its copy and original tehrir to Inspector Braham Parkash. It is further stated by PW16 that the Said FIR is now Ex. PW- 16/A (OSR) bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW16 that PW16 has also issued the certificate u/s 65B of IEA which is now Ex. PW-16/C. 6.17) PW17 Inspector Hari Singh deposed that PW17 was posted at posted PS Chawala, Delhi. It is further stated by PW17 that on 20.04.2011, PW17 received a DD number 12A vide which PW17 was informed that accused namely Sh. Rakesh Tyagi already wanted in the FIR 111/10 of PS Ranhola, Delhi. It is further stated by PW17 that thereafter, PW17 reached spot i.e. Shanti Kunj, Jhatikara, Delhi where PW17 met with the accused Sh. Rakesh Tyagi as informed by Sh. Neeraj Tyagi. Thereafter, PW17 brought the accused at PS Chawala and intimated the same to the PS Ranhola, Delhi. It is further stated by PW17 that thereafter, IO recorded his statement and PW17 was relieved from the present matter.
6.18) PW18 ASI Paul Sorn deposed that PW18 was posted at posted PS Ranhola, Delhi as a Ct. It is further stated by PW18 that on 05.07.2011, IO handed over me the questioned documents and forwarding letter and RC number 73/21/11 to be submitting at FSL Rohini. It is further stated by PW18 that the documents was in a State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 11/21 sealed pullanda and was submitting in FSL. It is further stated by PW18 that during the course, when the documents were in his presence, no tempering or misplacement was done. It is further stated by PW18 that thereafter, PW18 came back to the PS where IO recorded my statement.
6.19) PW19 Insp. Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 03.05.2010, PW19 was posted as SI at PS Ranhola, Delhi. It is further stated by PW19 that on that day, by the order the SHO Ranhola, investigation of the present matter was marked to PW19. It is further stated by PW19 that PW19 go through the file. It is further stated by PW19 that on 05.05.2010, PW19 visited the plot in question i.e. plot number 55, gali number 09, press enclave village Hasthsal, Delhi. It is further stated by PW19 that PW19 made inquiry there and recorded statement of Harpal Ahaluwali, Asgar Ali and Haji Younus. It is further stated by PW19 that they stated that in 1996, two brother namely Sh. Rajiv and Raj Kumar both son of Sh. Parkash Chand were living in this plot and Smt. Bimla was wife of Sh. Raj Kumar. Sh. Rajiv Kumar has been expired in an accident and in 2001, Sh. Raj Kumar also expired. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, Smt. Bimla alongwith his brother Sh. Vinod were living in the above said plot. It is further stated by PW19 that later on, Smt. Bimla and Sh. Vinod sold this plot to Sh. Ganesh Dutt joshi. Sh. Ganesh Dutt Joshi sold this plot to Sh. Sachidanand Sharma (complainant) who took the possession of the plot but later on Sh. Rakesh Tyagi alongwith co-accused Sh. Somdutt Tyagi and Sh. Virender Tyagi dis-possesses the complainant and took the possession of the said plot. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, they removed the articles of the complainant from the above said plot. It is further stated by PW19 that on 10.05.2010, PW19 served the notice U/s 91 Cr. PC to the complainant Sh. Sachindanand Sharma, the said notice is now Ex. PW-19/A bearing my signature at point A for providing chain of documents. It is further stated by PW19 that on 15.05.2010, complainant produced the original chain of documents of the said property in question which was seized by memo vide seizure memo Which is now Ex. PW-19/B bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW19 that the chain of documents is now Ex. PW-19/B-1 (colly). It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, PW19 searched State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 12/21 for the accused Sh. Rakesh Tyagi but he could not be found at his reseidence. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, accused Rakesh Tyagi moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Ld. Sessions Courts. Ld. Session court directed to join the investigation and adjourn the matter. It is further stated by PW19 that on 16.08.2010, accused Rakesh Tyagi joined the investigation and produced the chain of documents of the plot in question which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 19/C bearing my signature at point A for which PW19 have already served the notice u/s 91 Cr. PC which is now Ex. PW-19/D bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW19 that the documents are Ex. PW-19/E (colly). It is further stated by PW19 that after the scrutiny of the said documents, it was found that Sh. Rajiv and Sh. Raj Kumar are common in both the chains of documents of complainant and accused. It is further stated by PW19 that as per the documents of the accused namely Sh.Rajiv and Raj Kumar executed GPA in favour of his father Sh. Parkash Chand who later on sold it to accused Sh. Rakesh Tyagi. It is further stated by PW19 that PW19 served a notice U/s 91 Cr. PC to accused Sh. Rakesh Tyagi to provide proff of payment made to Sh. Parkash Chand, which is now Ex. PW-19/F bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, on 17.09.2010, PW19 had already sent a notice to SR-Janak Puri, Delhi for verification of the documents which PW19 obtained from both complainant and accused. It is further stated by PW19 that the said letter is now Ex. PW-19/G bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW19 that the reply by the SR-Janak Puri, Delhi was now Ex. PW-19/H. Thereafter, PW19 search for Sh. Parkash Chand for which PW19 went to his native place at Kangra Himachal Pardesh for inquiry and served a notice u/s 160 Cr. PC. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, Sh. Parkash Chand came and join the investigation and interrogated regarding the GPA executed by Sh. Rajiv and Sh. Raj Kumar in his favour but he could not any satisfactory reply. It is further stated by PW19 that PW19 also examine accused Smt. Bimla. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, the bail application of accused Sh. Rakesh Tyagi was dismissed from Hn'ble Session court. It is further stated by PW19 that PW19 searched for him but he could not be traced.
State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 13/21 It is further stated by PW19 that PW19 again made inquiry at the spot and recorded statements of Sh. Arun Kumar and Sh. Kailash Joshi. It is further stated by PW19 that on 04.04.2011, the anticipatory bail applications of accused Sh. Rakeh Tyagi, Sh. Virender Tyagi and Sh. Somdutt Tyagi. The bail applications of the accused persons were dismissed by Ld. Sessions courts. It is further stated by PW19 that on the same day, PW19 alongwith police officials reached the residence of accused Somdutt Tyagi and after interrogation he was arrested in the present matter vide arrest memo which was already Ex. PW-15/A bearing my signature at point B and prepared the personal search of the accused which is already Ex. PW-15/B bearing my signature at point B. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, PW19 alongwith accused Sh. Som dutt Tyagi and complainant Sh. Sachidanand Sharma went to the house of Sh. Virender Tyagi and arrested him at the instance of complainant vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-15/C and prepared the personal search already Ex. PW-15/D both bearing my signature at point B repectively. It is further stated by PW19 that PW19 also search for accused Rakesh Tyagi but he was absconding. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, on the next day, the both the accused was produced before the court and sent to judicial custody. It is further stated by PW19 that on 06.04.2011, PW19 wrote a letter to collector Revenue for verify the stamp paper issued in the name of Sh. Raj Kumar which is already Ex. PW-14/A bearing my signature at point A. It is further stated by PW19 that later on the reply was received which is already Ex. PW-15/C. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, PW19 search of accused Rakesh Tyagi but he was still absconding. It is further stated by PW19 that on 20.04.2011, PW19 received the information from PS Chawla that they have detained the accused Rakesh Tyagi in some other matter. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, PW19 alongwith Ct. Shriom went to PS Chawala and got him arrested in the presence of Sh. Neeraj Tyagi who was already present at PS Chawla vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-5/A bearing my signature at point C. It is further stated by PW19 that the personal search memo of accused Rakesh Tyagi is already Ex. PW-5/B bearing my signature at point C. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, accused Rakesh Tyagi was brought to the PS and State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 14/21 PW19 had interrogated and recorded his disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW-11/A bearing my signature at point B. It is further stated by PW19 that on the next day, the accused Rakesh Tyagi was produced before the concerned court and obtained his handwriting and signature with the permission of the concerned court. It is further stated by PW19 that PW19 was granted one day PC remand of the accused by the concerned court. It is further stated by PW19 that with in the court premises, PW19 had obtained the statement of notary public namely Ms. Vidya Singh Malik where she had denied notarizing the GPA which is executed by Sh. Raj Kumar in favour of Sh. Parkash Chand. It is further stated by PW19 that the said statement is now Ex. PW-19/I. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, PW19 further interrogated the accused Rakesh Tyagi and made efforts for the recovery of stolen article but no recovery was effected. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, on the next day, PW19 produced the accused before the concerned court and he was sent to judicial custody. It is further stated by PW19 that thereafter, PW19 was transferred on 04.05.2011 and PW19 handed over the case file to MHC (R).
6.20) PW20 Inspector Amit Dutt Sharma deposed that on dated 06.05.2011, PW20 was posted as SI at PS Ranhola, Delhi. It is further stated by PW20 that on that day, PW20 received the case from MHC ( R ) for further investigation in the present matter. It is further stated by PW20 that during investigation, PW20 got verified specimen signature and seal of Mrs. Vidya Singh Malik ( advocate) which are running in 04 pages which is now Ex. PW-20/A (colly) and specimen signature and seal of Mr. O.P. Choudhary ( advocate) which are running in 04 pages which is now Ex. PW-20/B (colly) and specimen signature and seal of Mr. R.K. Khatri ( advocate) which are running in 04 pages which is now Ex. PW-20/C (colly), all bearing my signature at point A on each pages. It is further stated by PW20 that PW20 recorded statements U/s 161 Cr. PC of above said advocates. It is further stated by PW20 that PW20 searched for the accused persons but they were not traceable. It is further stated by PW20 that during investigation, PW20 got verified the chain of documents. It is further stated by PW20 that during investigation, State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 15/21 PW20 had inquired about the present matter from V.S. Malik (Public notary) and she has stated that GPA and other documents which were executed by Rajiv and Raj Kumar in favour of Sh. Parkash Chand on 14.10.1997 were forged and her signature and stamp on its were not the original one and thereby the forged documents. It is further stated by PW20 that at that time, accused Parkash was not arrested, the GPA and other documents were executed in favour accused Rakesh Tyagi were also found to be forged and fabricated and in regard to the said chain PW20 had taken the specimen and seal of the advocate concerned. It is further stated by PW20 that during investigation, PW20 was also be notified through notary Sh. O.P. Choudhary that he had never attested the documents of Sh. Rajkumar in favour of Smt. Bimla Devi vide GPA dt. 03.10.2000 and the said documents were forged one and even PW20 had got the same verified from the office of stamp collector. It is further stated by PW20 that during investigation, PW20 had also inquired about the case from 5, Shamnath Marg, Delhi qua the stamp paper vide entry no. 25638-40/dated 03.10.2000 and same were verified from there and came to know that these were issued by stamp vendor Vijay Kumar bearing lic. no. 460 and that time the said license neither renew nor field up register was deposited and not even fresh register was issued to said license during the period 2000 to 2001. It is further stated by PW20 that during investigation, PW20 also verified the documents from Raj Kumar and Smt. Bimla Devi dated 03.10.2000 from the public notary Sh. R.K. Khatri who also refused the execution and bearing of his stamps and signature. It is further stated by PW20 that on the basis of the said fact, the said documents Ex. PW- 20/DD1 (colly up to will documents). It is further stated by PW20 that on the basis of said evidence, accused Bimla got arrested on 01.07.2011 vide memo already Ex. 12/A bearing my signature at point B and her personal search memo already Ex. PW-12/C bearing my signature at point B and recorded her disclosure statement already Ex. PW-12/C bearing my signature at point C and in the said disclosure, she had disclosed that she transfer the said property in favour of his brother Sh. Vinod. It is further stated by PW20 that thereby accused got arrested in the present matter vide documents already Ex. PW-12/B and Ex. PW-13/B both bearing my signature State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 16/21 at point B and recorded his disclosure already Ex. PW-12/D bearing my signature at point C. It is further stated by PW20 that during investigation,accused Bimla had produced some photographs of her marriage with her husband late Sh. Raj Kumar vide memo Ex. PW-12/G bearing my signature at point B and they were medically examine at DDU hospital and the said offender was Rakesh, Bimla and Vinod were sent to J/C. Brother of accused Vinod Kuamr, Sh. Puran had produced the death certificate of his father Sh. Trilk Chand who was expired on 21.10.2001 and PW20 procured the same vide memo already Ex. PW-12/F bearing my signature at point B. It is further stated by PW20 that during investigation PW20 made search of offender of Sh. Nand Ballabh but no clue was found. It is further stated by PW20 that PW20 also sent the documents to FSL and at that time its result was pending. It is further stated by PW20 that all the property documents are now Ex. PW-20/EEA for all the property documents placed on the record alongwith supporting documents.
6.21) PW21 Inspector Sikender Roy deposed that in September 2013, PW21 was posted at Ranhola as SI. It is further stated by PW21 that in the present case, PW21 perused the case and came to know that chargesheet was already submitted in the case, however, FSL result was pending as exhibits were sent there and thereby investigation was marked to me in that regard only. It is further stated by PW21 that thereafter, PW21 received FSL result from the FSL and after receiving the same, PW21 prepared the supplementary charge sheet alongwith FSL result and file the same before the court.
7) I have heard the submission of the parties and have perused the records carefully.
8) Indian Penal Code provides that :
Section 420 : 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 State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 17/21 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 468 : 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.
Section 471 : Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
Section 323 : Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 341 : Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 380 : Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 448 : Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 454 :Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
And if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years.
Section 506 : Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
7) PW2 has been cross examined in the present case only on the point that his
State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 18/21
statement has been recorded at PS on 09.01.2011 and the incident took place on 22.02.2010. There is no bar upon the IO to record the statement of tthe witness or supplementary statement anytime before the filing of the chargesheet at the convenient place. PW3 has turned hostile in the present case.
8) PW4 is a public witness who supported the case of the prosecution. Even though PW4 cannot depose regarding ownership but PW4 can depose regarding possession and what happened on the day of the incident. No previous enmity of PW4 alongwith accused persons has been shown. PW4 has clearly stated that accused Rakesh and Virender forcibly took the possession of the plot by breaking open the lock on 29.03.2010.
9) PW5 has deposed that IO arrested the accused in his presence. PW5 was the one who called at 100 number. PW6 is record keeper from Sub Registrar Office. PW7 in the present case stated that he has not notarized the document dated 03.10.2010 between Bimla Devi on one hand and Raj Kumar and Prakash Chand on the other hand. PW8 has deposed that he has sold plot bearing no.55, measuring 150 sqr yrds out of kh no.29/17/1 in village Hastsal, Vikas Nagar to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Rajiv Kumar. PW9 was doing the work of building material. PW9 has also deposed regarding selling of property from Dinesh Kumar to Sh. Raj Kumar and Rajiv Kumar. PW9 has stated that as per his knowledge Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Rajiv Kumar after their expiry did not sell the property to anyone as per his knowledge.
10) PW10 was the notary who stated that documents i.e. PW10/A was not notarized by him. PW10 has also deposed that sale documents between Smt. Bimla Devi and Sh. Vinod have been notarized by him.
11) PW11 is a formal witness who conducted part of investigation. PW12 is again a formal witness. PW13 is again a formal witness.
12) In the present case, complainant has purchased the property on the basis of notarized agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, GPA. In the judgment of Suraj Lamp Industries vs State of Haryana Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a property can only be transferred by virtue of sale deed or conveyance deed. In the State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 19/21 present case plot bearing no.55, measuring 150 sqr yrds out of kh no.29/17/1 in village Hastsal, Vikas Nagar is being sold again and again on the basis of notarized customary documents. Smt Bimal has executed one registered GPA in favour of her brother vide Ex. PW6/C.
13) Accused persons have allegedly purchased the property from Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Sant Ram. It is not clear as to why IO has not examined the signatures and thumb impression of Sh. Raj Kumar on agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, GPA, possession letter and Will all dated 03.10.2000. IO has not even examined witnesses Trilok Singh and Nanda Ballab. Merely, on the statement of notary that he has not signed and stamp the documents, it cannot be said that Smt. Bimla has forged documents dated 03.10.2000 when Smt. Bimla is alleged wife of Sh. Raj Kumar.
14) It appears that the chain of documents till the purchase by Sh. Rajiv and Sh. Raj Kumar from Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma on 26.04.1996 is fine and the divergence starts after the purchase of property by Sh. Rajiv and Sh. Raj Kumar. One chain of documents has been created by Smt. Bimla and Vinod and another chain of document has been created by Prakash Chand Sharma and Rakesh Tyagi.
15) In the present case accused Virender Tyagi is merely alleged to be involved in the preparation of forged documents and cheating. From the perusal of material on record the property has not been purchased by Sh. Virender Tyagi at any point. The role of accused Virender Tyagi is not clearly established in the present case. The benefit of doubt has to be given to accused Virender Tyagi.
16) IO has not particularly examined the aspect of Bimla being wife of Raj. If Bimla is wife of Raj then accused Bimla is entitle to 50 % share in the plot. It appears that accused Bimla was residing at the disputed plot alongwith Raj. The claim qua cheating should have come from Rajiv and LRs of Rajiv. It appears that the LRs of Rajiv have not instituted any case against Bimla and Vinod qua their 50% share. Even without any documents accused Bimla is entitle to 50 % share in the property being the alleged wife of Raj. It is to be noted that it is not mandatory to get GPA or agreement to sell or other documents notarized. It has become State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 20/21 customary to get these documents notarized to give these documents more sanctity.
17) Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma i.e. father of late Rajiv and Raj Kumar should have been impleaded as accused or witness in the present case. It is not clear as to why IO has not arrested Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma or made him a witness for reasons best known to IO SI Amit Dutt. In Hindu Succession Act, a father is not a class I legal heir. Without any authority or relinquishment by other LRs, Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma could not have sold the disputed plot to Sh. Rakesh Tyagi.
18) The dispute in the present case is stemming from two chains created by Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma and Smt. Bimla. Both Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma and Smt. Bimla are related to Rajiv and Raj Kumar. If we ignore the testimonies of notaries then it is apparent that both Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma and Smt. Bimla are entitled to the disputed plot being father and wife of deceased Rajiv and Raj Kumar. All the subsequent chain created from Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma and Smt. Bimla would be under misconception as the subsequent purchaser has been mislead by both Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma and Smt. Bimla.
19) The undersigned being a criminal court cannot conclusively decide issue of ownership. The appropriate forum in this regard is Ld. Civil Court. It is apparent that Sh. Rakesh Tyagi and Vinod are merely subsequent purchasers. Accused Bimla is apparently also entitled to the disputed property qua her 50% share. The IO should have examined the signatures of Sh. Raj Kumar and his thumb impression. Without such signature and thumb impression of Sh. Raj Kumar been conclusively proved from FSL that the same has been forged, this court cannot make Sh. Bimla liable for cheating and forgery.
20) In view of the above findings and discussions, all the accused persons stand acquited for offence U/s 420/468/471/323/341/380/448/454/506/34 IPC.
ANKIT KARAN Digitally signed by ANKIT KARAN
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.09.04 17:51:21 +0530
Announced in the open court (ANKIT KARAN SINGH)
on 04.09.2025 JMIC-08,West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Rakesh Tyagi & Ors FIR No. 111/2010 21/21