Delhi District Court
State vs Mukhtyar Singh on 3 February, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH GOYAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS01, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. : Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
FIR No : 200/2011
U/s : 420/468/471/506/34 IPC
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
1. Criminal Case No. : 5619/2017
2. Date of commission of offence : Before 02.04.2011
3. Date of institution of the case : 18.07.2017
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused & parentage : (1) Mukhtyar Singh
(proceedings abated)
(2) Surender Dabbas
(proceedings abated)
(3) Sanjay Bhardwaj @
Bijender Bharadwaj
(4) Raj Singh (proceedings
abated)
(5) Tika Ram Goel
(6) Ranjeet Singh
6. Offence complained or proved : U/S 420/468/471/506/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 29.01.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 03.02.2025.
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03
15:42:10 +0530
FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
2
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons Mukhtyar Singh, Surender Dabbas, Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bijender Bharadwaj, Tika Ram Goel, Ranjeet Singh and Raj Singh are facing trial for commission of offence U/S 420/468/471/506/34 IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that before 02.04.2011, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention forged property documents of property bearing Plot No. E942A, Khasra No. 33, Harijan Basti, Palam Extension, Sector 7, Palam belonging to complainant Sh. Raj Kumar as Plot No. E942B in order to cheat complainant and prepared forged allotment certificate in respect of plot No. E942B measuring 115 sq. yds dated 31.08.1984 of Gram Panchayat Palam alleged to have been signed by Pradhan Sh. Ishwar Singh and accused persons forged and fabricated the chain of documents of property bearing Plot No. E942B, area measuring 115 Sq. Yrd i.e., GPA, agreement to sell, receipt dated 06.01.1986 and had shown the same to have been executed between Radhey Shyam and Mukhtyar Singh , secondly, GPA agreement to sell, affidavit, will, receipt dated 02.04.1992 shown to have been executed between Mukhtyar Singh and Tika Ram, thirdly, GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, will, receipt dated 16.03.1995 shown to have been executed between Tika Ram and Raj Singh, fourthly, GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, will, receipt of February 2011 executed between Raj Singh and Surender Dabbas and used the said forged documents of plot E. 942B for obtaining electricity meter from BSES and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 420/468/471/34 IPC. During the period from 28.03.2011 to 02.04.2011, all accused persons in furtherance of common intention threatened to kill complainant Raj Kumar and Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:42:57 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
3his mother Laxmi Devi. The criminal law was set into motion by registration of FIR against the accused persons and investigation into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present chargesheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused persons for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the copies of chargesheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. During the trial when the matter was listed for arguments on charge, the accused Raj Singh expired and vide order dated 19.01.2018, the present case proceedings against the accused Raj Singh stood abated. Accordingly, after hearing the arguments on charge, the charge for commission of offence U/S 420/468/471/506 IPC was framed against all accused persons namely Mukhtyar Singh, Surender Dabbas, Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bijender Bhardwaj, Tika Ram Goel and Ranjeet Singh vide order dated 10.07.2018. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led. However, at the stage when the matter was listed for prosecution evidence, the accused persons namely Mukhtyar Singh and Surender Dabas also expired and the proceedings against these accused persons namely Mukhtyar Singh and Surender Dabas were abated. Thus, the remaining accused persons namely Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bijender Bharadwaj, Tika Ram Gole and Ranjeet Singh, are facing trial of the present case.
5. The proceedings U/S 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused persons admitted the factum of registration of FIR No. 200/2011 as Ex. A1, SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:43:05 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
4pursuant to such admission made by accused persons of these documents, witnesses at Sr. No. 11 SI Sh. Shanti Prakash was dropped from the list of witnesses .
6. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence U/S 420/468/471/506/34 IPC has been proved beyond doubt.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials and forgery of documents of property in question have not been proved to have been used at any public place. The signatures of Accused Sanjay and Ranjeet were not present upon any of the documents in question, thus, there is no evidence against them. The prosecution has not verified the signatures of Ishwar Singh on the Praman Patra issued to Sh. Radhey Shyam and as such, the subsequent chain of documents executed in favour of accused persons cannot be said to be forged. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, the accused persons be given the benefit of doubt and are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
8. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:43:18 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors. 5
9. PW1 Sh. Raj Kumar is the Complainant and he deposed that he was working in a school as chokidar in Hauz Khas Village. He has a house at E942 A, Harizan Basti, Palam Extension which was allotted to his father on 08.08.1984. He has electricity connection and water connection in his name as well as in the name of his mother Laxmi Devi. Accused persons had forcibly tried to grab his house and also threatened him to vacate the house and also abused several times, thus, he made calls on 100 number on several occasions and also gave written complaints to the police on 28.03.2011, 29.03.2011 and 01.04.2011. He has further deposed that even in the night time also accused came to his house and threatened him and his mother due to which he had a fear of his life and limb. He has alleged that accused persons had prepared a forged document to grab his land. They had also entered into their house and threatened to vacate the house and said that they wanted to construct the house. Accused persons have also got issued the electricity connection in their names but the same was disconnected later on. In the record of BDO the name of his father is entered against the said plot. On his complaint Ex.PW1/A, the present case was registered. During investigation, police had verified the documents and taken photocopy of the same. The same was verified with the Pradhan and BDO also. All the accused persons were correctly identified by the witness in the court. As per the map the plot is mentioned as 32 pertains to his plot E942A and there is no other plot except 32 and 33. He had also given the copy of survey list of the year 1984 and 2005 obtained in RTI by his uncle Sh. Rattan Singh Solanki from BDO Office where at serial no. 431 and 812, plot E942A is mentioned in the name of his father. He further deposed that there is no plot having no. E942B adjacent to his plot and the documents pertaining to the said FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed bySAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:43:25 +0530 6 plot E942B are forged and fabricated. He identified the accused persons in the court.
In his cross examination, PW1 deposed that he had given complaint Ex. PW 1/A dt. 02.04.2011 in the police station. He further deposed that he came to know about Raj Singh and some other persons through the police station. He conceded that his father was alloted a plot of 115 sq. yards by the Gram Sabha in the year 1984, which was given no.E942 A for which certificate was issued by Gram Sabha along with slip. He also conceded that his father was not allotted any other property by Gram Sabha except the aforesaid plot. He further deposed that the plot adjacent to the plot in question is owned by one Ram Kumar/Sant Ram. He further deposed that apart from the area of his plot, he has additional area of more than 100 sq. yds. He also conceded that the said additional area of 100 sq. yds was neither allotted to his father nor to him. The accused persons used to threaten him by throwing him out of the property bearing No.E942 A, Harijan Basti, Palam Extension, allotted to his father and were trying to take possession of the property in question and the vacant area, which is in his possession. No document qua subject property were ever shown to him by the accused persons. He conceded that the electricity meter installed in the said property was in the name of accused Surender Dabas. He further deposed that he came in possession of the entire property along with vacant area after the death of his father. He also inquired from the Pardhan of Gram Panchayat regarding the allotment of vacant area near his plot to which he replied that he can use the vacant area as other allottees were also doing the same. He further deposed that he had given his vacant plot area to one scrap Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:43:48 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
7dealer on rent. He further deposed that after the registration of FIR, he continued to reside in the subject property. He further deposed that the construction on the said property was done in the year 1984. The vacant area near the subject property is occupied by him and temporary structure is made by him on the same including washroom and bathroom. He further deposed that he had not given any forged documents to the police. He further deposed that he had not given any bill to the police regarding construction made on the vacant area. He came to know from the police station regarding the use of forged documents prepared by the accused persons for installation of meter on the vacant area near his allotted property.
10. PW2 Sh. Bharat Bhushan S/o Lt. Sh. Murari Lal has deposed that on 30.05.2012, he joined the investigation and he showed to the IO, the plot bearing no. E942A, Harijan Basti, Sector 7, Dwarka near by dispensary of ESI hospital. The said vacant land (area) was situated adjacent to their plot in east direction. They merged the above said area/vacant land in their plot after constructing four walls. The forged/fabricated documents of vacant land area were prepared by Raj Singh and his associates namely Surender Dabas, Sanjay @ Bijender, Ranjeet and the documents were prepared in the name of Mukhtyar Singh. IO prepared site plan of the concerned area at his instances i.e. Ex.PW2/A and recorded his statement U/S 161 CrPC. This witness correctly identified Accused Ranjeet and Sanjay @Bijender in court.
In his crossexamination, PW2 conceded that on the instructions of the then Pardhan Ishwar Singh, they have occupied the other land/adjacent measuring about 115 sq. yds although the same was not reflected in any Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:43:54 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
8document to show that the same was allotted to his father or grandfather. He further deposed that when the plot was allotted to his father, he was 13 years old. He further deposed that he knows Sh. Radhey Shyam, who is the son of Ami Chand and resided in the same street of accused Sanjay. He denied the suggestion that accused persons are not actual owner of the property bearing No.E942B. He further admitted that he has no knowledge about any forged documents of the aforesaid property, prepared by the accused persons.
11. PW3 Sh. Ved Prakash Dahiya has deposed that he was residing at the above said address with his family. He know one Ranjeet Singh from VPO Dichau Kalan, who used to run a shop in Najafgarh Anaj Mandi. After seeing the property documents including GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit, possession letter, receipt and will, he stated that all executed by one Mr. Raj Singh S/o Sh. Chandan Singh R/o Village Pinana, Sonipat, Haryana in favour of Surender Dabas S/o Sh. Daya Kishan Dabas R/o VPO Galibpur, New Delhi in February 2011 and he admitted his signatures upon the said documents which are Ex. MI (Colly). He further admitted that Ranjeet Singh took his signatures on these documents. These documents were not prepared in his presence and he signed them as a witness at the instance of Ranjeet Singh. He had no knowledge about the contents of the documents. However, the witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
12. PW4 Sh. Ram Avtar Doharey (Ex BDO, South west Distt., Najafgarh) has deposed that in the year 2011, he was posted as BDO, South West District, Najafgarh There was no record available regarding the property qua which the query was sent by SHO PS Palam Village with their office at that time, as per Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:44:09 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
9the report of Panchayat Secretary. His reply dated 20.04.2011 i.e. Ex. PW4/A, was prepared on the basis of the details provided by Area Panchayat Secretary. No questions were put to this witness by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity given.
13. PW5, Sh. Ishwar Singh S/o Late Sh. Meer Singh, R/o Plot No.3, Flat No.30, Rashi Apartment, Dwarka, Sector 7, New Delhi deposed that he was the Pradhan of Village Palam from 1983 to 1989. In the year 1984, plots ad measuring 115 sq yards each were allotted to landless persons belonging to SC community. He stated that he had issued patta certificate and LR form 37 to the allottees. He had issued patta certificate to one Murari Lal for plot E942A which is already Ex.PW1/E and bears his signature at point A. He had issued Form LR 37 to him for the said plot which is already Ex. PW1/F. IO had shown one patta certificate i.e. Ex. PW2/B in the name of Radhey Shyam S/o Ami Chand in respect of plot No. E942B. He denied his signatures upon the same and stated that he did not know as to who had signed on the same. There is no LR 37 form in respect of the said document either. In his opinion, the said document i.e. Ex.PW2/B is a forged document. He had issued one letter to SHO PS Palam Village in this regard same is Ex.PW5/A. In the crossexamination, this witness deposed that the applicants used to apply with Panchayat of Palam Village at Chaupal, Palam Village. Murari Lal must have applied for plot and on which allotment was made to him. BDO Officer, Najafgarh used to keep record of all the applications made for the allotment of the plot. Revenue officials used to provide a list of short listed applicants for the plot and he used to sign the patta certificate and LR37. There Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:44:15 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
10were about 11001200 persons to whom pattas of the plots were allotted. He used to maintain a record of the patta allottees with him and he handed over the said record to the Revenue Officials when the Panchayat System was dissolved in Delhi. He also admitted that at the time of allotting the plot of 115 sq. yds as per the list provided by the BDO office, no other land/plot of 115 sq. yds was left to be allotted, as per map provided by the Government department. They used to put the plot number on the certificates from the maps provided by the Govt. Department. He conceded that at the time of allotting the plot of 115 sq. yds as per the list provided by the BDO Office, no other land/plot of 115 sq. yds was left to allot as per the map provided by the government department. He identified his signature on the patta certificate and LR37 of Murari Lal. He further deposed that he used to keep his stamp of Pradhan Gram Sabha, Palam with him and he had not authorized any person to use the same on his behalf. He further deposed that he made complaint to the police regarding his forged stamp and signatures after coming to know about the same but he could not followup the same. He further deposed that he knows deceased Murari Lal personally as he was from his village. He deposed that he did not know any person by the name of Radhey Shyam S/o Ami Chand who used to reside in the same street with Murari Lal. He identified his signatures on the complaint Ex. PW 5/A and also submitted that the same was in his handwriting. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on the instruction of children of late Murari Lal as they had occupied the alleged land of 115 sq. yds, however, he has admitted that Murari Lal was from his native village.
Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:44:21 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors. 11
14. PW6 Sh. SC Gupta, Director Document Division, Truth Lab, New Delhi and Retd. Govt. Examiner of Questioned documents, CFSL, Hyderabad, deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted at New Delhi as Director, Document Division, Truth Lab. On 18.02.2016, documents in the present case were received for forensic examination in his laboratory from FSL, Delhi. The documents comprised of general power of attorney dated 06.01.1986 executed by one Radhey Shyam in favour of Mukhtyar Singh containing signature purportedly at point Q1 and Q2 and signature purportedly Rajpal at point Q9 and one original agreement to sell containing questioned signature at Q3, Q4 and Q10, one original affidavit dated 06.01.1986 with questioned signature at Q5 to Q7 and one original receipt dated 06.01.1986 for Rs. 15,000/ questioned signature at point Q8 and Q11 and also standard documents i.e. one original halfnama executed between Radhey Shyam and Sh. Mahender, Sh. Jai Gopal and Sh. Mahesh containing signature of Radhey Shyam at point Al and A2 and one bank original form dated 13.09.2007 bearing signature of Rajpal mark as A3 to A6. After thoroughly and scientifically examined the said documents and comparing questioned signature with their respective standard signatures with the help of scientific equipment available in the Truth Lab Delhi, he arrived a definite opinion which were typed and prepared report detailing his observation, finding and opinion and also given his reasons for the same. The report bears his signature on each page (6 pages) at point A. As per report, the person who wrote signature marked Al and A2 did not write signature marked Q1 to Q8 and the person who wrote signature from A3 to A6 did not write the signature marked Q9 to Q11. This report was forwarded to SHO PS Palam Village vide forwarding letter dated 29.06.2016 bearing the signature of Sh. A. K. Gupta at SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:44:27 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
12point A, who was the Senior Director/Chairman, Truth Lab. He can identify his signature as he had worked with him for 7 to 8 years and he has seen him writing and signing in the ordinary course of work. Further, he deposed that in the year 2017, he was posted as Director, Document Division Truth Lab, Delhi. On 26.12.2016, documents in the present case received for forensic examination in my laboratory from FSL. The documents comprised of questioned signature Q12 to Q20 of Mukhtyar Singh and Q21 to Q29 of Tikaram, Q30 to Q43 of Raj Singh, Q44 to Q45 of Surender and compared this questioned signatures with their corresponding standard signatures mentioned in point no. B (point 1 to 4) of the report. After thoroughly and scientifically examined the said and comparing questioned signature with their respective standard signatures with the help of scientific equipments and methods available in the Truth Lab, Delhi and on the basis of the same, he arrived at a definite opinion which were typed and prepared in his report, detailing his observation, findings and opinions and he has also his reasons on arriving on the said opinion. The reports bears his signature on all 10 pages on the bottom of each page. Signature is at point A on all 10 pages. The said report is Ex.PW6/A which was forwarded to the SHO PS Palam Village vide forwarding letter 29.04.2017 Ex.PW6/B under the signature of the then Chairman/Incharge. He also exhibited the report dated 25.06.2016 as Ex.PW6/C. Nothing contradictory came in his crossexamination being official/formal witness.
15. PW7 Sh. Monty S/o Late Sh. Mahesh Prakash R/o WZ665/A, Badial Palam Village, South West Delhi, New Delhi deposed that in the year 2012, he was the student of BA first year. On 02.10.2012, the police made some inquiry Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:44:36 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
13from him about his uncle namely Radhey Shyam. He told police that his uncle was a literate person and his uncle used to drink alcohol a lot. His uncle died on 01.01.2011 and made a halafnama (affidavit) on the stamp paper dated 24.07.86 and he handed over the same to the police. The said affidavit was bearing the signature of his uncle Radhey Shyam. Police officer seized the said documents vide memo Ex.PW7/A.
16. PW8 Ashok Kumar, S/o Sh. Chand Ram, R/o L 20, Shyam Park, Nawada, New Delhi deposed that in the year 2011, he was working at Hanuman property at 16A, Patel Garden, East, Dwarka Mor, Delhi and Ranjeet Singh was known to him. He further deposed that police official showed him one GPA, Agreement to sell, Possession letter, Receipt of payment, Will which was executed between Raj Singh and Surender Dabas and asked him whether those documents bear his signature as witness. He told the police official that he had put his signature as a witness on those documents at the instance of Ranjeet. The documents i.e. original GPA, Agreement to sell, Possession letter, Receipt of payment and Will were shown to the witness to which the witness admitted his signatures upon the same as a witness at points A upon the documents i.e. Ex. PW8/A to Ex. PW8/E.
17. PW9 HC Deepak NO. 973 OD, PS Nangloi, New Delhi stated that on 29.11.2016, he was posted as Constable at PS Palam Village. On that day, as per the instructions of IO, he along with IO went to OBC, Dichau Kalan, where they collected account opening form in respect of accused Mukhtyar Singh (Since deceased). IO seized the same vide memo Ex. PW9/A in his presence.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:44:42 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors. 14
18. PW10 Inspt. Bahadur Singh Gulia NO. DI1223, PCR Dwarka Zone, New Delhi has deposed that on 06.07.2014, he was posted as Inspector at PS Palam Village. On that day, the case file of the present case was marked to him. Thereafter, he conducted further investigation in the present case and got verified the notary stamps affixed on various documents which were seized by SI Virender Kumar who was the earlier IO of the present case but due to insufficient information, it could not be verified. Thereafter, he sent the signatures of Sh. Radhey Shyam i.e. EX.PW7/A to FSL for expert opinion and obtained it's result i.e Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, the accused Tika Ram, Raj Singh, Surender, Sanjay and Mukhtiyar were arrested vide arrest memos EX. PW10/A, EX. PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C, EX. PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E all bearing his signatures at point A. The personal search of accused Tika Ram and Sanjay were also conducted vide memos Ex.PW10/F and Ex.PW10/G. Thereafter, he obtained specimen signatures of all the accused persons and the same were sent to FSL for expert opinion vide acknowledgment dated 14.12.2016 i.e. Ex. PW10/H. Thereafter, one coaccused namely Ranjeet was also apprehended in this case and was released without arrest in this case and after completion of investigation he filed the chargesheet before the Hon'ble Court. On receipt of the FSL report i.e. EX. PW6/B, he filed the supplementary chargesheet in the present case.
19. PW11 Retired Inspt. Mahender Singh Gahlan, S/o Sh. Ram Kishan, R/o H. No. Village & P.O Dehra, Dist. Panipat, Haryana has deposed that on 28.05.2012 he was posted as Inspector at PS Palam Village. On that day further investigation of the present case was marked to him. On 30.05.2012, he went to Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:44:49 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
15the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW2/A. On 02.10.2012, he seized the Halafnama (Affidavit) vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. He also recorded the statement of witnesses namely Monty and Brij Bhushan U/S 161 Cr. P. C. Thereafter, he submitted the present case file to the MHCR concerned being transferred from there.
20. PW12 Inspector Virender Kumar, PIS No. 1697004, SHO Wazirabad, New Delhi has deposed that on 01.08.2011, he was posted as SI in PS Palam Village. On that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He examined complainant and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He served notice upon Surender Singh Dabas for supplying of some documents. Same were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. He had also served notice upon one person namely Ishwar Pradhan and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, on 04.01.2012, he got transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(R), PS Palam Village. Thereafter, after conclusion of prosecution evidence, the matter was listed for recording of statement of accused persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
21. Statement of the accused persons namely Sanjay, Ranjeet and Tika Ram under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately on 26.11.2024 in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to them. The accused controverted and denied the allegations leveled against them and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case.Accused persons further opted to not lead evidence in their defence.Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:44:55 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
16APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
22. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of accused persons and after going through the evidence on record and on the basis of allegations contained in the FIR, it is observed that the investigating agency submitted the final chargesheet against the accused persons, namely Mukhtyar Singh, Surender Dabbas, Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bijender Bharadwaj, Tika Ram Goel, Ranjeet Singh and Raj Singh. From the chargesheet, it emerges that the disputed property E942 B is only a vacant Plot, which lies adjoining the plot of the complainant E942 A and the Complainant is occupying the same. As per the evidence collected by the investigating agency, it emerges that disputed Plot E942 B was allotted to Radheshyam S/o Sh. Amichand by Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayath, Palam on 31.08.1984.
Thereafter, as per the alleged chain of documents, Radhe Shyam sold the plot to accused Mukhtiar Singh S/o Sh. Tek Chand on 06.01.1986. Thereafter, Mukhtiar Singh further sold the same to Sh. Tika Ram S/o Sh. H C Goyal on 02.04.1992 and the same was subsequently sold to Sh. Raj Singh on 16.03.1995. It is further alleged that accuse Raj Singh sold the said plot to Sh. Surender Dabas on 14.02.2011. The said transaction took place through GPA and not through registered sale deed. The investigating agency took the documents into possession from the last Vendee Sh. Surinder Dabas. During investigation, the statement of village Pradhan Shri Ishwar Singh was recorded who stated that he did not issue allotment letter in respect property number E 942 B, which is the disputed property. However, the original alottee Sh. Radhe Shyam expired prior to investigation, but the IO Mahendra Singh collected the affidavit/halafnama bearing signature of Radhe Shyam from his nephew, Monty FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed bySAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:45:02 +0530 17 Bhardwaj. Thereafter, the signature of Radheshyam on the said document i.e. EX.PW7/A was sent to FSL for comparison and vide report dated 29.06.2016 , the signatures of Sh. Radhey Shyam and witness SH. Raj Pal, were declared different as that of Sh. Radhey Shyam and witness Sh. Raj Pal on the chain of documents which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW12/A vide which the property E942 B was allegedly transferred by Sh. Radhy Shyam in favour of accused Mukhtiyar Singh. Thereafter, Investigating agency has made the analysis of series of property documents executed by the accused Mukhtiyar Singh in favour of Tika Ram and from Tika Ram to Raj Singh, from Raj Singh to Surender Dabas.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that the Truth lab report Ex. PW 2/C which is made the basis of taking the cognizance against the accused persons is not worth relying upon in view of the fact that in the said report it has been mentioned that the signatures of Radhey Shyam were compared with the admitted signature of Radhey Shyam on Halafnama Ex. PW 7/A, which was take in into possession from Monty Bhardwaj/PW7, who had deposed that Radhey Shyam was his Tau ji, who died on 01.01.2011 and the said Radhey Shyam used to drink alcohol a lot and stated that the said halafnama dated 24.07.1986 was handed over to the police and was sezied vide seizure memo Ex. PW 7/A. However, in his cross examination he had deposed that he cannot identify the signatures of his tau ji if shown to him. He had admitted that his deceased tau ji was not residing with him and has pleaded ignorance about the allotment of plot No.E 942B of Village Palam. He had also admitted that his tau ji never signed in his presence and pleaded his ignorance as to whether his Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:45:08 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
18tau ji used to sign in Hindi or English but has volunteered to say that the halafnama bears the signatures in English. Therefore, the halafnama was very important document to be proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt but the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus in proving the said halafnama to have been executed by Radhey Shyam.
24. It is pertinent to mention that the prosecution has not produced any of the named beneficiary of the said halafnama and no details of the property has been collected. None of the witnesses whose name has been mentioned in the said halafnama has been examined at any point of time to ascertain that the said halafnamai was executed by Radhey Shyam. No efforts were made to trace the stamp vendor from whom the said stamp paper was purchased despite the fact that the main address of the stamp vendor has been clearly mentioned. Therefore, the halafnama allegedly bearing the signatures of Radhey Shyam is doubtful. It is pertinent to mention that the finger print and handwriting expert PW 6 Sh. H C Gupta, in his report dated 29.06.2016 has mentioned that he compared the admitted signature of Radhey Shyam on halafnama with the disputed signature of Radhey Shyam on the property document. It is strange on what basis the handwriting expert PW6 has mentioned the same as admitted signature for comparison. There is nothing on the file that signatures of Radhey Shyam on halafnama was evidently of Radhey Shyam for the purpose of comparison and further investigation.
25. The testimony of Monty/PW7 from whose possession the prosecution has collected the halafnama is also shaky as he has pleaded his ignorance as to which language his Tau ji used to sign. He has categorically stated that he Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:45:14 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
19cannot identify the signatures of his Tau ji even if the same were shown to him. Therefore, the signature of Radhey Shyam on halafnama cannot be said to be the admitted signature of Radhey Shyam and as such, the report dated 29.06.2016 Ex. PW 2/C cannot be said to have been based upon admitted signatures and with the absence of admitted/standard signature for comparison with the questioned signature on the alleged forged documents, the FSL report Ex. PW 2/C and the observations therein becomes highly doubtful.
26. It is again pertinent to mention here that the said Radhey Shyam died in the year 2011. The prosecution could have collected his admitted/standard signatures from the bank documents/ration card, voter card etc. or from any place from where he must be availing the benefits of any social welfare scheme or from any other family member with whom he was residing but nothing was done to obtain the signatures of Radhey Shyam. Even the halafnama could have been shown to the family members to ascertain the fact that it bears the signatures of Radhey Shyam. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the onus that the property transaction document executed by Radhey Shyam for transferring the property bearing NO. E942 B in favour of Accused Mukhtiyar Singh, does not bear his signature.
27. As per the prosecution version contained in the complaint Ex PW1/A given by the complainant Raj Kumar/PW1 which is the basis of FIR Ex A1, it emerges that the complainant has projected the entire property as E942A allotted to his father Murari Lal vide Praman Patra dt. 08.08.1984 measuring 115 Sq. yards Ex PW1/E. Complainant Raj Kumar /PW1 has also filed civil suit before the Ld. Cvil Judge, South West, Dwarka bearing Civil Suit No. 444/11 on 02.05.2011 against the accused Raj Singh, Surender Dabas and Sanjay but Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:45:20 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
20the said civil suit was dismissed on 26.12.2016 holding that the plaintiffs i.e. the complainant herein has failed to prove his possession on the plot NO. E 942 B, Harijan Basti, Palam Extn. Sector 7, Palam Village, New Delhi, Kh. NO. 34/11. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said civil suit, the plaintiffs have projected the land adjoining to property NO. E 942A as part of plot No. E 942A but the civil court has recorded the finding that the plot No. E942 A and Plot No. E942B are two plots adjoining to each other and measuring 115 Sq. yards each and has recorded the finding that only plot No. E 942A was allotted to the father of plaintiffs Murari Lal. Therefore, when the plaintiffs have neither been held to be owner nor in possession of plot No. E 942B there is no locus in favour of the complainant Raj Kumar/PW1 to file the complaint against the accused with the accusation that the accused persons had come to take forcible possession of the adjacent plot NO. E942B and also threatened him with dire consequences and that too on the basis of chain of false sale documents created by the accused persons in collusion with each other. Therefore, the genesis of dispute and the cause of action to lodge the FIR in itself stands falsified as for the purpose of commission of offence U/S 420/468/471 IPC, the following ingredient are required to be proved as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs St. of Bihar, Dt. 04.09.2009": "The 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 Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:45:26 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.21
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)."
28. The term forgery has been defined in section 463 IPC and making a false document has been defined U/S 464 IPC as follows:
463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 464 defining "making a false document" is extracted below :
"464. Making a false document.A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First.Who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed,executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:45:33 +0530 22 whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. Explanation 1 A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery.
Explanation 2 The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.
29. From the above, it is observed that the condition precedent for an offence under sections 468 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the accused persons, in executing and registering the sale documents purporting to sell a property E 942 B (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to them), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the each other.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:45:40 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors. 23
30. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:
i) 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.
ii) 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.
iii) 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 practiced upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
468 Forgery for purpose of cheating: 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.
Therefore, the ingredients for offence U/S 468 IPC are :
1. Whosoever commits forgery as defined U/S 463 IPC, FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:46:18 +0530 24
2. and uses the said forged documents for the purpose of cheating as defined in section 420 IPC.
Section 471 IPC provides that 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 470 IPC defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery.
Therefore, the condition precedent for an offence U/S 468/471 IPC is "forgery" and condition precedent for forgery is making a "false documents"
A person is said to have made a false document if : a. he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else or b. he altered a document or tempered a document or c. he obtained a document by practicing deception
31. The hon'ble apex court in the above said judgment of Md. Ibrahim has further elaborated the provision of section 463 to 471 IPC and has held that : "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 authorized 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 Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:46:24 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.25
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 authorized 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."
32. It has been observed that when sale documents are executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under the sale deed to alleged that the vendor has cheated him by making false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale deed consideration.
33. But in the instant case, complainant Raj Kumar/PW1 is not the purchaser of plot NO. E942B. The chain of purchase of the property in question is that Radhey Shayam has transferred it to Mukhtyar Singh who has transferred to Tika Ram from where Raj Singh and subsequently Surender Dabas has acquired the title and all have been made accused in this case. None of the purchasers have made any complaint with police regarding cheating and forgery committed by either of the vendor who has Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:46:30 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
26executed the sale documents in the form of GPA, Will, Affidavit, Receipt etc. All the purchasers in the aforementioned chain have been made accused but the complainant Raj Kumar/PW1 is not the purchaser and does not figure in any way in the chain of sale documents. The disputed plot i.e. E 942 B belongs to the Gram Panchayat and Gram Pradhan during 20 point programme in the year 1984 has allotted the plots each measuring 115 Sq. yards to the allottees. The father of the complainant Murari Lal was allotted plot No. E942A measuring 115 Sq. Yard by the Gram Pradhan. There is no dispute about the allotment of plot E942A to the family of the complainant. But from the chain of document executed by various vendors since 1984, it emerges that initially Radhey Shaym has projected himself to be the allottee of plot No. E942 B measuring 115 Sq. yard by the Gram Pradhan. But the Gram Pradhan Ishawar Singh/PW5 has denied his signature on the said allotment letter of Radhey Shyam but it has come in evidence from his testimony that some plots were allotted to the landless persons and all the plots were of 115 Sq. yards and he allotted Patta certificate of plot No. E 942A in favour of Murari Lal and the same is Ex. PW1/E. He has admitted that 11001200 persons were allotted plots and the patta certificate LR37 was issued and he had handed over the records to the Revenue officials when the Panchayat System in Delhi got abolished. He has admitted that at the time of allotting the plots, all were of 115 Sq. yards as per the list provided by the BDO office. No plots of 115 Sq. yards was left unallotted as per the Govt. Department. However, the witness has pleaded his ignorance as to whether the plot No. E942B was allotted to anyone. He has Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:46:43 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
27also pleaded his ignorance as to whether plot No. E942B was situated adjacent to the plot No. E942A of Murari Lal.
34. No doubt, Ishwar Singh/PW5, exGram Pradhan has denied his signature on the Praman Patra in favour of Radhey Shyam. His simple denial of his signature on the allotment letter would not suffices to hold that the said plot No. E942 B was not allotted to Radhey Shyam particularly when he has pleaded his ignorance about the allotment of said plot E 942 B either to Radhey Syam or to any other person. It is pertinent to mention that investigating agency has not conducted the investigation fairly as no efforts were made to collect the revenue records from the office of Revenue Department to whom the allotment record has been handed over by the Gram Pradhan after the abolition of Gram Panchayat in Delhi.
35. The prosecution has relied upon the letter Ex. PW4/A issued by BDO, Najafgarh written and exhibited by Sh. Ram Avtar Doharey /PW4, BDO South West Najafgarh. As per his deposition, he was posted as BDO in the year 2011 and there was no record available with the office regarding which the SHO concerned has asked for. During his deposition, he has stated that as per the report of Panchyat Secretary, he has prepared his reply Ex. PW4/A but there is nothing in the file as to on which basis Panchayat Secretary prepared the report. No report allegedly prepared by Panchayat Secretary has been appended with the report Ex PW4/A. In the report Ex. PW4/A, it is mentioned that there was no record of LR 37 of the plot either in favour of Murari Lal or in the name of Radhey Shyam. He has stated that there were cuttings at places in the Praman Patra of Murari Lal and the name of Murari Lal has been mentioned in the survey list of 2005 which FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed bySAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:46:49 +0530 28 was prepared on the basis of local enquiry. He furtehr stated that in Palam Village, the Gram Pradhan has allotted plots 2/3 times and thus, the enquiry be made from the Gram Pradhan as to whom the plots were allotted. It has been mentioned in Ex. PW4/A by the BDO that there is a Praman Patra in favour of Radhey Shyam S/o Ami Chand as well. Therefore, the testimony of this witness is not conclusive in nature rather leads to an inference that Murari Lal and Radhey Shyam both are Praman Patra holders issued by Gram Pradhan.
36. The prosecution has also placed reliance upon the RTI information dt. 22.06.2009 supplied by BDO, Najafgarh which consists of 79 pages. But the prosecution has placed only 5 pages wherein name of Murari Lal s/o Bal Kishan has been mentioned against the plot No. E 942 A measuring 115 Sq. yards. Non production of entire 79 pages of RTI information leads to an inference that the investigation is tainted and that is why only five pages have been placed on the file just to support the complainant Raj Kumar about the allotment of Plot No. E942A which is not in dispute and the civil court has recorded finding in civil suit No. 444/11 decided on 26.12.2016 by the court of Ld. Civil Judge, South West Dwarka New Delhi that complainant Raj Kumar and other plaintiffs were owners and in possession of plot No. E942A but they have failed to prove the ownership and the possession over plot No. E942B which was adjacent to the plot No. E 942A.
37. Therefore, the non production of entire records related to plot allotment made by Gram Pradha to 1200 (approx.) eligible persons cast shadow of doubt over the prosecution version that plot No. E 942 B was not FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed bySAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:46:55 +0530 29 allotted to Radhy Shaym. The complete revenue records of the allotment could have depicted the complete picture regarding allotment of all the plots but the RTI information is not of the total allotment and the same has been placed on the file by concealing the relevant information just to help the complainant Raj Kumar PW1.
38. It is again pertinent to mention here that when Ishwar Singh, Ex. Grram Pradhan has denied his signature and the stamp on the Praman Patra of Radhey Shaym, then it was incumbent upon the prosecution to get the signature of Ishwar Singh/PW5 verified from the FSL but no such signature was got compared to ascertain as to whether the Praman Patra of Radhey Shyam bears his signature or not.
39. Therefore, non comparison of signature of Ishwar Singh/PW5 and non collecting of revenue record regarding the allotment of Plot No. E 942B casts a shadow of reasonable doubt over the prosecution version in order to establish that Sh. Radhey Shyam was not the original allottee of plot No. E942B. Even if it is assumed that Radhey Shaym was not the Praman Patra holder of E942B, even then he has executed the GPA, Will, Affidavit, Agreement to sell and receipt in favour of Mukhtyar Singh/accused No. 1 and if the vendor Radhey Shyam was not the competent person to sell the property, then the aggrieved party is vendee Mukhtyar Singh who had the locus to challenge the said transfer on the basis of execution of false document but said accused never challenged the execution of the documents by Radhey Shyam.
40. Similarly, on account of execution of property documents dt. 02.04.1992 comprising of GPA, Affidavit, agreement to sell, will and FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03
15:47:01 +0530
30
receipt, Mukhtyar Singh had transferred the property E942B in favour of Tika Ram Goel who had the locus of challenging the execution of chain of documents but nothing was done by Tika Ram Goel. In the same way, the property was transferred by Tika Ram in favour of Raj Singh through property documents dt. 16.03.1995 and from Raj Singh to Surender Dabas through property documents dated 14.02.2011 and none of them have agitated the matter and made any complaint of dishonest or false representation and execution of forged documents. None of the successive purchasers of the plot in question have raised the issue of preparation of false documents. Therefore, the complainant/PW1 has no locus standi to project the said chain of documents as preparation of false documents as no forgery and cheating as observed above are found to be attracted qua the complainant. The complainant can not be said to the aggrieved regarding the allegation U/S 420/468/471 IPC because he is not the purchaser of plot E 942B.
41. Further, from the testimony of PW 1/Raj Kumar, it emerges that the role of PW 5/Ishwar Singh is dubious as he being the Gram Pradhan had allowed him to unauthorizedly take possession of plot E 942 B but from the evidence and the circumstances of this case and on the basis of civil suit No. 444/11, it is evident that there are two plots bearing No. E942 A belonging to the complainant and adjacent to Plot No. E942 B and there is no vacant land near the plot of the complainant.
42. The site plan Ex. PW 2/A prepared by PW 11/IO Inspt. Mahender Singh after visiting the property in question, in presence of PW 2 and from the said plan it emerges that there are two plots and disputed plot is shown FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03
15:47:07 +0530
31
as E942 B, Mark A and it has been mentioned that the same is unauthorized extended part of E942 A. Therefore, the investigating agency itself has mentioned that there are two plots E942 A and E942 B (which has also been held by civil court) and disputed property is shown as extended unauthorized part of E942 A. The IO PW11 has taken into custody the Halafnama from Monty vide seizure memo PW 7/A and has admitted that Monty had never shown any other document to prove that the signature on Halafnama belongs to Radhey Shyam.
43. The investigating agency has made successive purchaser as accused and without proper investigation has impleaded all the beneficiaries as per the chain of documents as coaccused. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed in the Judgment of Md. Ibrahim (Supra) as follows: "14. 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 coaccused. 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 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 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed bySAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:47:13 +0530 32 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.
15. 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 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 noneconomic or nonpecuniary 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." Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:47:19 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
3344. Therefore, after going through the evidences and circumstances of the case, it emerges that the complainant Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Murari Lal/PW1 has reported the matter to the police vide complaint Ex.PW1/A, dated 02.04.2011 on the basis of which FIR Ex.A1 was recorded.
45. It is pertinent to mention that PW1 has admitted in his cross examination that he never gave any forged document prepared by the accused to the police. It is also pertinent to mention that PW2 brother of the complainant has also deposed that his father was allotted the property E942A, measuring 115 Sq. Yd. and that on the instructions of Sh. Pradhan Ishwar Singh, they have occupied further area of one 115 Sq. Yd., but there is no document of adjacent area under their possession. He has also deposed in his crossexamination that he does not know anything pertaining to title documents of E942B. At the same time, there is no evidence as to whether the accused applied for BSES connection. Moreover, the complaint dated 29 March, 2011 made by the complainant to the SHO was regarding the meter hanged at the gate of plot of the complainant. However, there is no document that the accused ever applied for BSES connection in the plot E 942 B using forged and fabricated documents. No document is seized by the IO from the BSES Department or any evidence has been collected regarding the installation of BSES Meter in the name of an accused Surinder Dabas upon the property either E942A or E942B.
46. IO/PW 12 has taken into custody, the original Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Possession letter, Will, Receipt executed by Raj Singh and in favour of Sh. Surender Dabas which has been produced as Ex. M1(colly). It is pertinent to mention that all the documents were original on which photo FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signed bySAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:47:33 +0530 34 of Sh. Raj Singh (vendor) and Surinder Dabas, (Vendee) has been affixed. The said documents have been witnessed by one of the witness Sh. Ved Prakash Dhaiya, who has affixed his signature and has admitted the same when he appeared as PW3. The another attesting witness Sh. Ashok Kumar/PW8 has also admitted his signatures on the said documents. It is pertinent to mention that when the said documents were sent to FSL for comparison of signatures of Sh. Raj Singh with his specimen signature, the FSL report Ex.PW6/A has found the signatures of Sh.Raj Singh as genuine, but the expert has failed to give any definite opinion regarding the signature of Sh. Surinder Dabas in whose favour the said documents have been executed. Therefore, the document EX.M1(Colly) executed by Sh. Raj Singh and accused Surinder Dabas can't be said to have been prepared falsely. Rather, accused Sh. Surender Dabas falls in the category of bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration.
47. The FSL has also examined the signatures of Sh. Tika Ram on the documents executed by him in favour of Raj Singh and the FSL has given the opinion that said documents bearing signatures of Tika Ram are same as in the specimen signature taken by the IO. Similarly, the signatures of Raj Singh on the documents executed by Tika Ram in favour of Raj Singh have been opined to be of the same person who affixed the signatures on the documents that is GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Will vide which the property bearing NO. E942 B was transferred from Raj Singh to Surinder Dabas.
48. Now coming to the documents executed between Mukhtiar Singh and Tika Ram, the FSL report Ex. PW6/B has opined that signatures of FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:47:38 +0530 35 Mukhtiar tallied with the admitted signature of Mukhtiar in his bank records. The said documents under consideration for FSL examination also bears the signature of second party, Tika Ram, which has also been opined to be made by the same person who has signed the subsequent chain of documents as well.
49. Now coming to the execution of GPA, agreement to sell, receipt executed by Radheshyam in favour of Mukhtiyar dated 06.01.1986, it is observed that no doubt the official report Ex. PW2/C opined that the signature of Radhe Shyam and witness Rajpal on the Property documents executed by Radhe Shyam and Mukhtiar Singh, does not match with the admitted documents. However, the signatures of Radheshyam on halafnama cannot be considered to be the admitted signatures as discussed above, and as such the report regarding the verification of signatures of Radhe Shyam on the document under consideration in favour of Mukhtiar Singh is not worth relying upon in view of the fact that signature on halafnama of Radheshyam were doubtful as observed above.
50. Moreover, even if it is assumed that the property documents which were executed by Radhe shyam are false, then the subsequent purchaser, Mukhtiar Singh was the aggrieved party and he could have agitated the matter against Radhe shyam. Therefore, in the entire chain of documents, no document can be said to be executed with the intention or knowledge of committing cheating and forgery. Further, the testimony of PW9, PW10, PW11 and PW12 is formal in nature and largely relates to investigation at Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:47:44 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
36one stage or the other. But from their testimony, it cannot be inferred that accused persons prepared false documents to commit cheating and forgery.
51. Further, the accused persons have also been chargesheeted for offence under section 506 IPC, but it seems that the complainant has made false allegations against the accused Surinder Dabas and others, because the complainant has himself encroached upon the adjoining plot E942B and in order to put pressure upon the accused persons not to stake their claim on the said plot, the present complaint seems to have been made. Moreover, Laxmi Bai, mother of the complainant who was also present at the time of occurrence at night has not been produced in witness box and examined to substantiate the allegations U/s 506 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations for the offence U/s 506 IPC against the accused persons beyond all the reasonable doubts.
52. In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused persons therefore, this Court holds the accused persons namely Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bijender Bhardwaj, Ranjeet Singh and Tika Ram Goel not guilty of commission of the offence in question. Thus, the Accused persons namely Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bijender Bhardwaj, Ranjeet Singh and Tika Ram Goel are hereby, acquitted of the offence U/S 420/468/471/506/34 IPC. Previous bail bonds, if any furnished by the accused persons at the time of commencement of trail stands canceled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands canceled. Case Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:47:50 +0530 FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.
37property if any, shall be disposed of after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03
15:47:55 +0530
Announced in the open court on (Saurabh Goyal)
this day i.e. 3rd February, 2025 JMFC01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 37 pages and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signedSAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.02.03 15:47:59 +0530 (Saurabh Goyal) JMFC01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi FIR No. 200/2011 St. Vs. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors.