Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Parkash @ Mukesh on 28 November, 2018
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEHA GUPTA SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02,NORTH DISTRICT, DELHI
STATE VS. Jai Parkash @ Mukesh
FIR NO: 637/00
P. S. Samai Pur Badli
U/s 420/468/471 IPC
JUDGMENT
Registration No. of the case : 5288008 2016
Date of its institution : 22.05.2003
Name of the complainant : Sh. Ravinder Gupta
Date of Commission of offence : 26.09.2000
Name of the accused : Jai Parkash @ Mukesh S/o
Sh. Kanhiya Lal R/o House
No. 80, Village & PO
Katevara, Delhi39.
Offence complained of : U/s 420/468/471 IPC
Plea of accused : pleaded not guilty
Case reserved for orders : 27.10.2018
Date of judgment : 28.11.2018
Final Order : Acquitted for offence
U/s 420/468/471 IPC
-: 2 :-
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1.The prosecution story in brief is that on 26.09.2000 during the day, accused Jai Parkash @ Mukesh dishonestly induced Mangal Pandey and his wife Smt. Sharda Pandey to deliver Rs. 1,45,000/ to accused as sale consideration representing himself to the owner of plot measuring 57 yards out of Khasra No. 21/10 in block E13 Sarup Nagar area of village Libaspur Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS SamaI Pur, Badli. Further, on the aforesaid date, time and place accused dishonestly forged sale agreement affidavit, receipt, possession letter and GPA for the purpose of cheating Smt. Sharda and Mangal Pandey by representing himself as the owner of plot measuring 57 square yards in Sarup Nagar village Libaspur as mentioned above though belonging to Ravinder Gupta complainant and used the forged documents as genuine knowing at the time of its use to be forged and thus accused thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 420/468/471 IPC. FIR was registered.
2. Investigation was completed and police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed under sections 420/468/471 IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned.
3. Copy of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
-: 3 :-4. Arguments on charge were heard and charge against accused Jai Parkash @ Mukesh was framed under section U/s 420/468/471 IPC by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 18.03.2005. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined eight witnesses.
6. PW1 constable Satpal deposed that on 28.09.2000, he was posted at PS S.P. Badli and on that day, on receipt of DD No.9A he alongwith SI Jai Prakash went to the spot at Khasra No. 21/10, Libas Pur, house of Ravinder Gupta and met with three persons namely Ravinder Gupta, Ramesh Kumar and Mangal Pandey. The bolt of the door with lock put it in was found to be dismantled/ broken. Inside the house there were one folding plung, one table, one gudri, two pillow, two bed sheets, one khes and one hammer were seen. IO interrogated the neighbours and recorded the statement of Ravinder Gupta and prepared rukka and got the case registered through PW1. IO put the Ravinder Gupta back in the possession of the house and seized the photocopy of 34 papers produced by Ravinder Gupta vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. Mangla Prasad Pandey also gave 23 papers to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. All the articles -: 4 :- which were kept in the house were also seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. Possession memo was also prepared by the IO vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He identified the entire case property as Ex.P1 to P8.
7. PW2 Baljeet Singh deposed that on 05.11.2000, he was posted as PS S.P. Badli and joined the investigation with IO SI Jai Prakash and Ct. Charan Jeet Singh and Mangla Pandey. He further deposed that accused Jai Parkash was arrested at the pointing of Mangla Pandey from his village Katevara and he proved his arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. Accused also made the disclosure statement on 06.11.2000 and he proved the same as Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that in August 2000, accused met Mangla Pandey as he wanted to purchase the plot. Accused Jai Parkash showed him one locked house and he agreed to purchase the same. On 21.08.2000, he gave you Rs. 21000/ as advance and on 26.09.2000, he gave you Rs. 1,24,000/ on obtaining forged papers of the house from the accused. Accused further disclosed to Mangal Pandey that he has forgotten to bring the key and broke the lock of the house and kept the articles of Mangla Pandey inside the said house.
8. PW3 Ravinder Gupta deposed that in the year 1992, he was running a business of Sale/Purchase of vehicles. On -: 5 :- 11.11.1992, he had purchased a plot at Khasra No. 21/10, Libaspur of 50 sq. yard which was constructed with two rooms and one kitchen and one tubewell from Gurbachan Lal. They made documents of the above said plot, took the possession and put the lock on the said premises. On 28.09.2000, he alongwith his brotherinlaw Ramesh Goyal went to the said plot and found the lock broken and one person Mangal Pandey residing there and he disclosed that he had purchased the said plot from one Jai Parkash. Thereafter, his brotherinlaw called the police at No. 100. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A. Police also prepared site plan Ex.PW3/B. Police officials seized the articles kept in the above said plot in room vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He proved the photocopy of the document pertaining to the ownership of plot at Khasra No. 21/10, Libaspur of 50sq. Feet which he had purchased from Gurbachan Lal. The photocopy of the said documents were handed over to police officials. He proved the same as Mark A (colly.).
9. PW4 Ms. Deepa Verma, Dy. Director, FSL, Rohini has proved her detailed report No. FSL2001/D354 dated 27.09.2001. As per this report (I) the person who wrote the writing and signatures stamped Mark S1 to S38, also wrote the red enclosed signature similarly stamped and -: 6 :- Marked Q3 to Q14. Detailed reasons are also therein report. (ii) There were some similarities in the writings marked Q1, Q2 and S1 to S38 but it was not possible to express a definite opinion on rest of the items on the basis of material at hand. She proved her report as Ex.PW4/A.
10. PW5 HC Chanderjeet deposed that on 05.11.2000 he joined the investigation alongwith SI Jai Parkash and complainant Mangal Pandey in the present case. They went to the house of accused i.e. at Village Katevada, Qutubgarh, Delhi and upon reaching there, at around 5.30p.m. on pointing towards accused by the complainant, accused Jai Parkash was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B.
11. PW6 Inspector Jai Prakash, is the investigating officer of the present case. He corroborated the testimonies of all the witnesses. He further deposed that on 28.09.2000 on receipt of DD No. 9A, he alongwith Ct. Satpal went to Khasra No. 21/10, Village Libaspur and met with the complainant Ravinder Gupta and two other persons namely Ramesh Gupta and Mangla Pandey. He recorded the statement of complainant as Ex.PW3/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Satpal. He prepared site plan at the instance -: 7 :- of complainant and proved the same as Ex.PW3/B. He seized the articles lying in the room vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He seized the photocopy of documents produced by Ravinder Gupta and Mangla Pandey Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively. He also prepared possession memo Ex.PW1/D. On 05.11.2000. He also proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused vide Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. He obtained the specimen signature/ handwriting of the accused which are collectively Ex.PW6/C.
12. PW7 Ramesh Kumar deposed that he is Deputy Director General in Ministry of Communication and in the end of September 2000, he alongwith his brotherinlaw Mr. Ravinder Gupta went to the aforesaid plot which in his name and the size of plot is 50 sq. meter constructed with one floor. On reaching there, they found that the said premises was illegally occupied by someone who introduced himself as Mangla Pandey. On inquiry, he told that he has purchased the said premises from one person namely Jai Prakash i.e. accused and since the key of the house was missing, the lock was broken. He entered into the house and inside the house, they found broken lock (kunda) was lying on the floor of the house. They complained to the police. The documents were handed -: 8 :- over to the police.
13. PW8 Inspector Sanjeev Chahar deposed that on 03.12.2001 he was posted as SI at PS S.P. Badli. On that day, the investigation was handed over to him of the present case and he took the charge of the case and started investigation. On 20.12.2001, the interim bail of accused Jai Prakash rejected by the concerned court. The documents taken by the previous IO and the specimen signatures were given to him and he sent them to FSL and obtained the FSL result.
14. Thereafter, prosecution Evidence was closed. Statement of accused U/s 313Cr.P.C was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence was put to accused explained to him in his vernacular language. He pleaded his innocence. He did not lead any defence evidence.
15. Final arguments were lead for state by Ld. APP and for accused Ld. Counsel lead the arguments.
16. It is argued by the Ld. APP Sh. Dinesh Kumar for the state that state has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further stated that there are ocular and documentary evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accused cheated the complainant by selling his land to some third person by forging the documents.
-: 9 :-17. Per contra it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused that there is no evidence on record against the accused. Witness Mangal Pandey who allegedly purchased the land from accused is not examined. There is no such person as Mangal Pandey, complainant has filed the false complaint to grab the property.. It is nowhere shown that accused gave inducement to the complainant. Original documents are not placed on record, neither is there any evidence to show that accused forged the documents. There is no proof on record to show that land belonged to the complainant.
18. In present case allegations against the accused are for offence u/s 420/468/471IPC ie. Cheating and forgery of documents.. Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the IPC to consti tute an offence. Under the aforesaid section, it is inbuilt that there has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of the said offence.
19. In the present case Mangal Pandey is not examined by the prosecution neither any other public witness is examined who can state that accused gave him any inducement or what role accused played in cheating him -: 10 :- or that accused sold the land in question to him. Further, prosecution has failed to prove any original document on record. Alleged forged documents are not in original on record. Prosecution has failed to prove that land belonged to PW 3 Ravinder Gupta. Admittedly Io did not verified his ownership and he has not produced the documents. Further, the fact that this land was sold by accused to Mangal Pandey is also not proved.
20. In the case of S.N. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2001 AIR SCW 4435, The Supreme Court has said that for constituting offence under Section 420, that is, cheating, intention to deceive should be in existence at time when inducement was made and mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as leading to cheating, and ultimately, in the said case, Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482of the Code, quashed the complaint and the process issued thereon against the accused by saying that the alleged acts against the accused was not constituting alleged offences for want of satisfying ingredients of offences.
21. In present case prosecution has failed to prove cheating or forgery by the accused persons as they did not prove the documents on record to be forged. Further it is -: 11 :- not proved that complainant or Mangal Pandey was induced by the accused. No receipt if given to complainant is proved on record. Documents or that accused gave inducement to complainant or that he received sale consideration from complainant is not proved. Moreover, it is also not proved that land belonged to the complainant.
22. In such circumstances it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Jai Prakash is acquitted for offence under section 420/468/471 IPC.
Announced in the open court
On this 28th November, 2018
NEHA Digitally signed
GUPTA SINGH
by NEHA GUPTA
Date: 2018.11.28
SINGH 16:43:34 +0530
(Neha Gupta Singh)
Metropolitan Magistrate02,
North, Rohini Court
Delhi