Delhi District Court
Narender Solanki vs State on 1 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN, LD. ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE03, SE: NEW DELHI
CR No. 25/10
Narender Solanki
S/o Shri Ram Singh Solanki,
R/o House No. 1045, Ram Bagh Road,
Near Pratap Nagar
New Delhi ........Revisionist/Accused
Versus
State
.........Respondent
O R D E R :
1. Present revision petition is filed by the revisionist being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 of framing of charge u/s 420/468/471/472/411 IPC passed against him by the trial court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Uttam Singh complained to the police that he is having a TSR No. DL 1 RD 6634 which is carrying engine no. 39725 and chassis no. 46624 and got to know that on this very number another TSR is also running in Sangam Vihar area and that TSR appears to be stolen and running on using forged number. He Narender Solanki vs. State, C.R. No. 25/10 (Contd......1) further alleged in the complaint that one Narender Solanki who resides near Pratap Nagar, Metro Station used to give this TSR on rent. After lodging of the complaint, SI K.P. Shah alongwith complainant reached Tigdi T Point where they found the said TSR which is run by one Banwari Lal who on inquiry told that he is running this TSR on rent @ 300 per day taken from accused Narender Solanki. Chassis no. and engine no. of said TSR bearing registration no. of the complainant's TSR on checking found to be different and thereafter the said TSR was seized and an FIR u/s 420/468/471/472/411 IPC was registered.
3. During inquiry accused Narender Solanki disclosed that this TSR was given to him by one Ravi Bhatia whose name and address he do not know. Ravi Bhatia and his associate Mohd. Shakil were called at PS where both had stated that since no. of days they are stealing the TSR's and after engraving the forged number they are selling those TSR's in the market and on pointation of Ravi Bhatia one TSR bearing No. DL 1 RC 1302 whose actual number DL 1 RC 1773 was recovered. It was further found that regarding the said TSR one FIR is already pending in PS Hari Nagar. Thereafter Ravi Bhatia, Mohd. Shakil and Narender Solanki were arrested.
4. On the basis of disclosure statement of Narender Solanki one accused Brij Mohan was also arrested who used to prepare forged papers from Narender Solanki vs. State, C.R. No. 25/10 (Contd......2) his computer and further on the pointation of accused Narender Solanki, 3 more stolen TSR's were recovered. During police custody remand at the pointation of Ravi Bhatia 23 TSR's were recovered which were taken into possession.
5. During investigation police has recovered a TSR no. DL 1RC 7681 at instance of accused Narender Solanki and as per seizure memo it is told by the accused that he has sold this auto to one Mr. Jitender Mistri by making forged papers and further another auto DL 1 RC 5679 was also recovered at his instance which also was sold to Jitender Mistri on forged papers by him. At his instance one more TSR no. DL 1 RC 0187 was recovered which was sold to one Charan Singh on forged papers by him. IO during arguments also stated to have recorded the statements of Jitender Mistri and Charan Singh in this regard.
6. Ld. counsel for the revisionist submits that all these above mentioned three autos were seized u/s. 102 Cr.P.C. and further the auto DL 1 RD 6634 was found to be stolen from the area of police station Mayapur and wanted in FIR no. 110/07 and other scooters were also stated to be stolen from other police stations and therefore, no charge can be framed against accused in present case.
7. At the stage of framing of charge, court has to see only prima facie Narender Solanki vs. State, C.R. No. 25/10 (Contd......3) case, it cannot appreciate the probative value of material on record. The primary allegation in the present case against accused Narender Solanki is that he used to sell stolen three wheeler scooters by tampering with chassis and engine no. on forged documents by showing them as genuine documents. Recovery of auto alongwith forged ownership documents at instance of accused prima facie discloses offence u/s. 420/468/471/427/411 IPC.
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused also raised objection that charge was framed only for the forgery of documents for three wheeler scooter DL 1 RD 6634 and not for any other scooter. This is a mere defect in the framing of charge, which can appropriately be rectified by the trial court and is no ground of discharge.
9. In view thereof, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of framing of charge. Thus, revision petition stands dismissed. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to trial court. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court On this day of 01st September, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Jain) Additional Sessions Judge-03, South East District, New Delhi Narender Solanki vs. State, C.R. No. 25/10 (Contd......4)