Delhi District Court
Sh. Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal on 29 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No.53/2010
Unique Case ID No.02402R0051972010
Sh. Ajit Singh ... Petitioner
Authorized Director of
M/s Heat Exchange Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at
E36/10, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi 110027. ... Petitioner
Versus
1 Ajit Mittal, Proprietor of
M/s Ajit Mittal Corporation,
406, Neelgiri Apartments,
9, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110001.
2 State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.02.2010
Date of order reserved : 22.03.2011
Date of order : 29.03.2011
CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 1 of 10
Criminal Revision No.01/2011
Unique Case ID No.02402R0008592011
Ajit Mittal s/o Late Sh. B.S. Mittal
R/o 406, Neelgiri Apartments,
9, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110001. ... Petitioner
Versus
(1)State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(2)Ajit Singh
Director Heat Exchange (P) Ltd.
At E36/10, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi110027. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.01.2011
Date of order reserved : 22.03.2011
Date of order : 29.03.2011
O R D E R
By this common order, I propose to decide two revision petitions, bearing no.53/2010 and 1/2011. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have meticulously gone through the submissions made on behalf of the CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 2 of 10 parties and the material available on record.
2 In C.R. No.53/2010, a challenge has been made to order dated 2.1.2010, passed by the Ld. ACMM, Karkardooma Courts vide which accused Ajit Mittal has been discharged for the offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 IPC. Whereas in C.R. No.1/2011, a challenge has been made to framing of charge under Section 417/471 IPC by the Ld. ACMM against accused Ajit Mittal.
3 Facts leading to filing of these two revision petitions are that complainant Ajit Singh had filed a criminal complaint in the Court against accused Ajit Mittal along with an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which FIR was ordered to be registered at PS Anand Vihar. Consequently FIR No.12/2009 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC was registered against accused Ajit Mittal. The allegations against accused Ajit Mittal were that he had taken premises of complainant Ajit Singh on lease for a period of three years and sometime before expiry of the lease, he stopped paying rent and electricity charges due to which some litigations and a criminal case was registered against him. It was also alleged that accused Ajit Mittal forged documents viz. No CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 3 of 10 Objection Certificate and Electricity Restoration Application purported to be signed by complainant Ajit Singh. On the basis of the NOC and Electricity Restoration Application, accused Ajit Mittal got the electricity connection transferred in his name. 4 On the basis of allegations as contained in the chargesheet and documents appended thereto, Ld. Trial Court held that in view of allegations and report of CFSL, no charges under Section 467/468 and 420 IPC were made out and only charges under Section 417/471 IPC were made out against accused Ajit Mittal. Accordingly vide order dated 28.9.2010, charge under Sections 417/471 IPC were framed against accused Ajit Mittal. 5 Being aggrieved with the passing of these orders, present revision petitions have been filed.
6 Petitioner Ajit Singh in Cr. Rev. No.53/10) has taken the grounds that at the time of framing of charge, Ld. Trial Court was not competent to evaluate the worth of evidence/ allegations and was to make only a prima facie view; prima facie a case under sections 420/467/468 IPC was made out and accordingly charges under these sections were to be framed,therefore, order of CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 4 of 10 Ld. Trial Court not framing charges under these sections is erroneous and can not be countenanced in law.
7 On the other hand, accused Ajit Mittal (in Cr. Rev. No.01/11) has taken the grounds that petitioner had no nexus with the forged documents i.e. NOC and that no case for charge was made out against him, therefore, framing of charges under section 417/471 IPC is bad in law and can not be sustained.
8 Perusal of record shows that on the complaint of complainant Ajit Singh, FIR No. 12/09 Police Station Anand Vihar was registered. As per FIR, complainant Ajit Singh, leased out his property bearing No. 349, Patparganj FIE, Delhi to accused Ajit Mittal on a monthly rent of Rs. 99,000/. The said lease deed stood expired. Previous litigation between the parties was pending and an FIR No. 416/06 Police Station Anand Vihar was registered against accused Ajit Mittal and his associates. It was alleged that accused Ajit Mittal forged signatures of complainant Ajit Singh on NOC and filed the same before the BSES by using it genuine and got the electricity connection transferred in his own name. It was also alleged that said NOC was never given by complainant Ajit Singh. CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 5 of 10 9 Specimen handwritings of complainant Ajit Singh and that of accused Ajit Mittal were taken and sent to FSL along with their signatures on question documents for comparison. In the report of FSL, it is mentioned that no definite opinion can be expressed on questioned documents in comparison to specimen signatures and handwriting. In the absence of such opinion, accused Ajay Mittal could not have been fastened with liability of committing forgery in respect of NOC, therefore, no offence under section 467/468 IPC was made out against the accused Ajit Mittal because for offence of forgery one of most important ingredients is that accused should be the person who committed forgery. There is also no evidence on record that accused Ajit Mittal made any inducement either to the complainant or to any other Authority to deliver any property to him or he made, altered or destroyed any valuable security or part thereof. Therefore, offence under section 420 IPC was also not made out against accused Ajit Mittal, therefore, he was not rightly charged under that section.
10 However, fact remains that alleged NOC was forged one and accused Ajit Mittal submitted the same with BSES CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 6 of 10 knowing and having reason to believe the same to be forged one and got the electricity connection transferred in his name. Thus, by this act of his, accused Ajit Mittal deceived and cheated the BSES authority to transfer the electricity connection in his name. Therefore, he has been rightly charged under section 417/471 IPC. 11 Ld counsel for petitioner Ajit Mittal has relied upon authorities reported as Jibrial Diwan vs State of Maharastra reported in 1997 (4) RCR ( Criminal) 566; Mohd Ibrahim and others vs State of Bihar and Anr. 2009(4) JCC 2753; Dhanpat Rai Jain vs. The State 2000 I AD ( Delhi) 445; Dr. Vimla vs. The Delhi Administration 1963 (2) Cri.L.J. 434; Dr. S. Dutt vs. State of UP AIR 1966 SC 523; Hira Lal and others vs State of UP and others 2009 (2) JCC 1346 to press his contention that since accused Ajit Mittal had not forged any document, he could not have been charged under section 471 IPC.
12 However, in earlier part of the order, that alleged NOC was forged one which accused had submitted with BSES for getting the electricity connection transferred in his name. When he had submitted a forged NOC, he can not be allowed to plead that he CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 7 of 10 did not have knowledge of the NOC being forged one. Therefore, authorities relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Ajit Mittal are not attracted to the facts of the present case. 13 In Subhadra Versus State (reported in 1996 IV AD Delhi 181), it was held by their lordship that at the time of framing the charge, the court has not to apply the same standard of test and judgment which it finally applies before recording a finding of guilt or otherwise. At the stage of framing of charge, what the court has to see is whether there is ground enough for presuming that the accused have committed the offence for which they have been charged. The court is not to judge the veracity and effect of evidence whether it will culminate in conviction.
14 In Smaty Machra and another Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 4341), it was held that the considerations which are relevant at time of framing of charges and those at time of conclusion of trial are entirely different. While grave suspicion would entitle Court to frame charges, grave suspicion alone would not entitle Court to convict a person in respect of said charges. If the Court has strong reasons to suspect that crime was committed CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 8 of 10 by accused, then it would not be in error if it frames charges accordingly.
15 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Soma Chakravarty Versus State through CBI (reported in AIR 2007 SC 2149) has held in para 20 that it may be mentioned that the settled legal position is that if on the basis of material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction, the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone in to, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.
16 From perusal of record and law laid down Soma Chakravarty Versus State through CBI ( supra), Smaty Machra and another Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ( supra) and Subhadra Versus State( supra), I am of the considered opinion that accused Ajit Mittal has been rightly charges for offence under section 417/471 IPC and he was rightly discharged under section CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 9 of 10 420/467/468 IPC. I find no, illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order and charge framed. Same are accordingly upheld. Resultantly, present revision petitions are dismissed being without merits.
17 Copy of this order be also placed in file of Crl. Rev. No. 01/11. Copy of the order be sent back to the Trial Court. Revision files be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 29.03.2011 District Judge (East)
Addl. Rent Control Tribunal
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
CR No.53/10 & 1/11 Ajit Singh vs Ajit Mittal Pg. 10 of 10