Delhi District Court
Sh Surender Singh vs The State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Unique I.D No. : 02403R008922016
New CR No. : 8531/2016
Old Criminal Revision Number : 20/2/16
Sh Surender Singh
S/o Sh Rangoo Singh
R/o 43, Kings George Avenue,
Southempton Hemshire, England.
...Petitioner/Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh Sher Singh
S/o Sh Rangoo Singh
R/o A-13, Sham Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. ...Respondents
Date of receipt of file in this Court : 18.03.2016
Date when arguments were heard : 02.12.2016
Date of Order : 03.12.2016
ORDER
1 The present revision Petition is filed by the complainant / revisionist and is directed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Ms Snigdha Sarvaria, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in proceedings arising out of CR no. 20/2/16 Sher Singh Vs State & Anr. page 1 of 7 FIR No. 118/12 Police Station Tilak Marg, under section 420/467/468/471 IPC whereby the learned Trial Court discharged the accused / respondent no. 2 u/s 420/511, 467/468 IPC, however, directed to frame charge against him u/s 471 IPC. The record would show that the said impugned order was also assailed by the accused before the Sessions court by filing a criminal revision petition no. 7/16, however, the said revision petition was dismissed by the court of Ms Anju Bajaj Chandna, Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-6, PHC, New Delhi vide order dated 14.03.2016.
2 I have heard the rival submissions on behalf of learned counsel for the revisionist/complainant, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 and Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2/accused and have also carefully perused the record including the Trial Court record.
3 The relevant facts of the case which can be culled out from the complaint dated 28.05.2012 as made by the complainant/revisionist to SHO PS Tilak Marg are that the complainant's father Mr Rangoo Singh was owner of property bearing no. A-13, Block-A, measuring 200 sq yards which was forming part of Killa no. 5/1, Rec No. 37, situated in Sham Nagar Colony on main road, Village Khayala, New Delhi gifted the said property to the complainant by a registered gift deed dated 03.06.2009 and as such the complainant became the absolute owner of the said property. The accused/respondent no. 2 Sh Sher Singh is the real brother of the complainant/revisionist. The respondent no. 2 failed to hand over the possession of said property to the revisionist which resulted in filing of civil suit by the revisionist herein i.e. CS (OS) No. 1904/2010 for possession and mesne profits/damages against the respondent no. 2 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was alleged by the complainant that the documents filed by accused in the said civil suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court i.e. the Will of Sh Ghasita Singh and Deed of Agreement (in Urdu) allegedly executed by CR no. 20/2/16 Sher Singh Vs State & Anr. page 2 of 7 Sh Rangoo Singh along with their Hindi and English version were forged and fabricated documents.
4 The FIR No. 118/12 was registered at PS Tilak Marg on 18.08.2012 against the accused u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused u/s 420/511/467/468/471 IPC.
5 The ld. Trial court vide impugned order dated 22.12.2015 discharged the accused / respondent no. 2 u/s 420/511/467/468 IPC, however, directed framing of charge for the offence punishable u/s 471 IPC. 6 The ld. Counsel for the complainant/revisionist argued that a grave suspicion arose against the accused to the effect that he had prepared the forged documents for the purpose of cheating etc and therefore the ld. Trial court erred in discharging him for the offences u/s 420/511/467/468 IPC. He argued that the ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that the accused by forging the documents in question and by fabricating them had tried to shift the status of the property in his favour and hence in addition to Section 471 IPC, he should also be charged under section 420/511/467/468 IPC. He argued that it would only be a matter of trial if the accused who was being benefited by his fraudulent act could be convicted or not but atleast the charge under above said sections could have been framed against him. He further referred to the FSL report dated 18.02.2014 wherein it was opined that Mr Rangoo Singh did not put his signatures on the agreement dated 25.11.1969. He thus argued that the respondent no. 2- accused should also be charged u/s 420/511/467/468 IPC. 7 On the other hand, ld counsel for respondent no. 2-accused argued that there is no material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 of the ld. Trial court. He argued that there is no material whatsoever on record to even prima facie show or to raise a grave suspicion CR no. 20/2/16 Sher Singh Vs State & Anr. page 3 of 7 against him that he actually forged the above said Will or the agreement dated 25.11.1969. In this regard, he also referred to the FSL report dated 18.02.2014 which did not opine that the documents in question had the signatures or writing of the accused. He also referred to order dated 14.03.2016 of the court of Ms Anju Bajaj Chandna, Ld. Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-6, PHC, New Delhi in Criminal revision no. 07/16 titled as Sher Singh Vs State wherein it was held that the impugned order was proper and logical and no illegality or irregularity was found therein. He therefore argued that the present revision petition was not maintainable. He contended that as there is no proper vakalatnama of the revisionist on record, hence, the present revision petition is not maintainable. He thus argued that the said revision petition should be dismissed.
8 The Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 argued that the present revision petition is not maintainable in view of the order dated 14.03.2016 of Ld. Sessions Court wherein also the present impugned order had been assailed. He further contended that as there is nothing on record to even prima facie suggest that the accused / respondent no. 2 forged and fabricated said documents therefore, the charge u/s 420/511/467/468 IPC could not have been framed against him. He thus opposed the present revision petition.
9 The brief facts of the case have already been mentioned above and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. The complainant has alleged that the accused filed the copies of the documents i.e. Will of Sh Ghasita Singh and Deed of Agreement executed by Sh Rangoo Singh during the course of above said suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and that the said documents are forged and fabricated. It would be pertinent to note that during the investigation of the matter, the said documents were sent for FSL examination /expert opinion upon which a Report No. F.S. L. CR no. 20/2/16 Sher Singh Vs State & Anr. page 4 of 7 2013/D-7402 dated 18.02.2014 was obtained. The questioned signatures were marked Q1 on the Will, Q2 on a sheet and Q3 and Q4 on an agreement dated 25.11.1969. The standard writing / signatures were Marked S1 to S10 and A1 to A8 of Sh Rangoo Singh and S11 to S 22 of accused Sher Singh/respondent no. 2. It was opined in the said report that the person who wrote S1 to S10 and A1 to A8 did not write the signatures Marked Q3 and Q4. It was thus opined that Sh Rangoo Singh did not put his signatures on the agreement dated 25.11.1969. The FSL report could not express any opinion on the signatures on the Will while comparing it with the admitted signatures of Sh Rangoo Singh. The ld. Trial court was thus right in holding in the impugned order that the said FSL result had not opined that the specimen signatures S11 to S22 of the accused matched with the questioned signatures on the alleged forged documents and therefore prima facie it did not give rise to any grave suspicion against the accused that he actually prepared the forged documents for cheating etc. In that regard Section 464 IPC which defines 'Making a false document' would also show that one has to dishonestly or fraudulently make, sign, seal or execute a document or part of a document or make any mark denoting the execution of a document etc with the intention of causing to be believed that such document were part of the document was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knew that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed or who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently by cancellation or otherwise alters a document in any material part thereof after it has been made executed or affixed either by himself or by any other person etc to make a false document. In view of the FSL report, there is nothing on record to prima facie show to raise a grave suspicion that it was accused who actually committed forgery by making a CR no. 20/2/16 Sher Singh Vs State & Anr. page 5 of 7 false document in terms of Sections 463 and 464 IPC. The ld. Trial court thus rightly came to a conclusion that no grave suspicion arose against the accused for framing charge against him in the above said sections and thus rightly discharged him u/s 420/511/467/468 IPC. There is no material illegality or irregularity in the said impugned order on that score. 10 Further, it seems that although the accused challenged the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 before the Sessions court in Criminal Revision No. 07/16 against the directions of ld. MM directing framing of charge u/s 471 IPC against him but the ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 14.03.2016 was seized of the entire impugned order and in fact mentioned that since no evidence could be collected as to who had committed the forgery, therefore, the accused was discharged under the offences 420/511/467 and 468 IPC. The ld. Sessions court in the said order dated 14.03.2016 further held that according to settled legal position, charge can be framed merely on the basis of grave suspicion. The ld. Sessions court further held as under:
"I conclude that impugned order is proper and logical and no illegality or irregularity is found therein and therefore no interference is called for."
In view of the above said observations of the ld. Sessions court vide order dated 14.03.2016 wherein the same impugned order dated 22.12.2015 was under challenge, it also seems that the present revision petition is not maintainable.
11 In view of the above said discussion, it is held that there is no material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 22.12.2015 warranting any interference by this court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
12 The present revision petition is thus dismissed being devoid of any legal merits and it is also held to be not maintainable.
CR no. 20/2/16 Sher Singh Vs State & Anr. page 6 of 7 13 TCR be sent back along with the copy of the present order and Revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open (AMIT BANSAL) Court on 03.12.2016 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI 03.12.2016 CR no. 20/2/16 Sher Singh Vs State & Anr. page 7 of 7