Delhi District Court
Jagdish Lal Bhatia vs . Bihari Lal on 10 September, 2015
Jagdish Lal Bhatia Vs. Bihari Lal
CC No. 649/1
PS: Kirti Nagar
10.09.2015
ORDER
Present: Counsel for applicant/complainant .
I have already heard the arguments on maintainability. The present complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed by stating that accused is running his business from premises bearing no. WZ919, Chuna Bhati Area, Kirti Nagar, Delhi since 1955. The complainant closed his business in terms of direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in "M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India". The complainant stopped doing business on the aforementioned property. However, he remained in possession, there since 1955.
On 24.09.2004, some government officials visited the house of complainant and threatened to take coercive steps. The complainant filed a civil suit no. 314/14 in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi titled as "Sh. Jagdish Lal Bhatia Vs. D.D.A & Ors". It was disposed of by the Hon'ble Curt of Ms. Shefali Sharma, Civil Judge vide order dated 03.08.2011 on the basis of statement of concerned officials.
The complainant received summons from the court of Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Ld. Civil Judge (West) in suit no. CS208/13 titled as "Ram Parkash Kamat & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Lal Bhatia". The said suit was for permanent injunction and it was based on manipulated and fabricated documents. The said suit contained wrong information/statements and false, manipulated, fabricated and forged documents/site plan alleging therein that Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 1 they are in possession of WZ929 near Diary Chuna Bhatti, W.H.S., Timber Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
The complainant had previously hired the services of accused for carrying out job work. He permitted the accused to work on a part of plot on daily wages alongwith other workers. The complainant provided compensation/labour charges in cash and the arrangement lasted for 6/8 months. Lateron the intention of accused dishonest and he started proclaiming himself to be in independent possession of the portion of property by creating and fabricating forged document. The accused filed false affidavit in proceedings to get the favourable order in his favour by playing fraud and suppression of material facts about his alleged possession. He knew that such statement was not proved and therefore it is a fit case for registration of FIR. The provisions contained in sections 191, 193, 196, 200 and 209 of IPC are also attracted. The complaint was given to police but no action has been taken.
I have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant. He has placed reliance on law laid down in "Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr." (2005) 4 SCC 370.
I have considered the submissions and gone through the record. The allegations in the complaint are two fold i.e. :
(i) that accused had filed a false affidavit in a civil suit by falsely alleging that he was in possession of property;
(ii) he had forged the documents and submitted them in civil court.
Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 2As far as offences u/s 193, 196, 200 and 209 are concerned, section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking of cognizance, "except on the complaint in writing of that court or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.
Thus, the cognizance of allegations that accused has given false information in the civil court and filed a false affidavit therein cannot be taken by this court directly without compliance of section 195 of Cr.P.C.
The other allegation about forgery of documents is not clearly spelt out in the complaint. There is no allegation as to which of the document were forged by the accused. However, the complainant has filed certified copy of visiting card of Bihari Lal, Aadhar Card of Bihari Ram and PAN card of Bihari Ram. The PAN card does not show the address on it and the copy of visiting card show the address as WZ919, Near Dairy, Chuna Bhatti, Kirti Nagar.
At this stage, it is necessary to note that for commission of offence of forgery that is under 463 IPC, it is necessary that the document alleged to be forged should be false document. The term false document has been defined in section 464 of IPC. It is reproduced as 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 Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 3 electronic record;
(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of such document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by 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 electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or any electronic record or to affix his electronic 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 alteration.
The allegations that the accused had got prepared his visiting card by mentioning the address of complainant do not tantamount to creation of false document. There is no allegation that the accused had forged the signature of complainant or any other person or any of the Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 4 documents or he had altered any document without the consent of its maker. Thus, the allegations do not disclose that accused had committed forgery within the four corners of definition of false document as mentioned above.
The judgment so relied upon by the counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts of present case as the allegations themselves do not disclose commission of offence of forgery.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Sushant Changotra) MM08 (West)/T.H.C. Delhi/10.09.2015 Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 5 Jagdish Lal Bhatia Vs. Hardev Sharma CC No. 651/1 PS: Kirti Nagar 10.09.2015 ORDER Present: Counsel for applicant/complainant .
I have already heard the arguments on maintainability. The present complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed by stating that accused is running his business from premises bearing no. WZ919, Chuna Bhati Area, Kirti Nagar, Delhi since 1955. The complainant closed his business in terms of direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in "M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India". The complainant stopped doing business on the aforementioned property. However, he remained in possession, there since 1955.
On 24.09.2004, some government officials visited the house of complainant and threatened to take coercive steps. The complainant filed a civil suit no. 314/14 in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi titled as "Sh. Jagdish Lal Bhatia Vs. D.D.A & Ors". It was disposed of by the Hon'ble Curt of Ms. Shefali Sharma, Civil Judge vide order dated 03.08.2011 on the basis of statement of concerned officials.
The complainant received summons from the court of Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Ld. Civil Judge (West) in suit no. CS208/13 titled as "Ram Parkash Kamat & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Lal Bhatia". The said suit was for permanent injunction and it was based on manipulated and fabricated documents. The said suit contained wrong information/statements and false, manipulated, fabricated and forged documents/site plan alleging therein that Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 6 they are in possession of WZ929 near Diary Chuna Bhatti, W.H.S., Timber Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
The complainant had previously hired the services of accused for carrying out job work. He permitted the accused to work on a part of plot on daily wages alongwith other workers. The complainant provided compensation/labour charges in cash and the arrangement lasted for 6/8 months. Lateron the intention of accused dishonest and he started proclaiming himself to be in independent possession of the portion of property by creating and fabricating forged document. The accused filed false affidavit in proceedings to get the favourable order in his favour by playing fraud and suppression of material facts about his alleged possession. He knew that such statement was not proved and therefore it is a fit case for registration of FIR. The provisions contained in sections 191, 193, 196, 200 and 209 of IPC are also attracted. The complaint was given to police but no action has been taken.
I have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant. He has placed reliance on law laid down in "Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr." (2005) 4 SCC 370.
I have considered the submissions and gone through the record. The allegations in the complaint are two fold i.e. :
(iii) that accused had filed a false affidavit in a civil suit by falsely alleging that he was in possession of property;
(iv) he had forged the documents and submitted them in civil court.
Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 7As far as offences u/s 193, 196, 200 and 209 are concerned, section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking of cognizance, "except on the complaint in writing of that court or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.
Thus, the cognizance of allegations that accused has given false information in the civil court and filed a false affidavit therein cannot be taken by this court directly without compliance of section 195 of Cr.P.C.
The other allegation about forgery of documents is not clearly spelt out in the complaint. There is no allegation as to which of the document were forged by the accused. However, the complainant has filed certified copy of visiting card of Hirdev Sharma and driving license of Hardev Sharma. The copy of visiting card show the address as WZ919, Near Dairy, Chuna Bhatti, Kirti Nagar.
At this stage, it is necessary to note that for commission of offence of forgery that is under 463 IPC, it is necessary that the document alleged to be forged should be false document. The term false document has been defined in section 464 of IPC. It is reproduced as 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;
Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 8(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of such document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by 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 electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or any electronic record or to affix his electronic 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 alteration.
The allegations that the accused had got prepared his visiting card by mentioning the address of complainant do not tantamount to creation of false document. There is no allegation that the accused had forged the signature of complainant or any other person or any of the documents or he had altered any document without the consent of its maker.
Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 9Thus, the allegations do not disclose that accused had committed forgery within the four corners of definition of false document as mentioned above.
The judgment so relied upon by the counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts of present case as the allegations themselves do not disclose commission of offence of forgery.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Sushant Changotra) MM08 (West)/T.H.C. Delhi/10.09.2015 Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 10 Jagdish Lal Bhatia Vs. Ram Parkash Kamat CC No. 650/1 PS: Kirti Nagar 10.09.2015 ORDER Present: Counsel for applicant/complainant .
I have already heard the arguments on maintainability. The present complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed by stating that accused is running his business from premises bearing no. WZ919, Chuna Bhati Area, Kirti Nagar, Delhi since 1955. The complainant closed his business in terms of direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in "M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India". The complainant stopped doing business on the aforementioned property. However, he remained in possession, there since 1955.
On 24.09.2004, some government officials visited the house of complainant and threatened to take coercive steps. The complainant filed a civil suit no. 314/14 in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi titled as "Sh. Jagdish Lal Bhatia Vs. D.D.A & Ors". It was disposed of by the Hon'ble Curt of Ms. Shefali Sharma, Civil Judge vide order dated 03.08.2011 on the basis of statement of concerned officials.
The complainant received summons from the court of Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Ld. Civil Judge (West) in suit no. CS208/13 titled as "Ram Parkash Kamat & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Lal Bhatia". The said suit was for permanent injunction and it was based on manipulated and fabricated documents. The said suit contained wrong information/statements and false, manipulated, fabricated and forged documents/site plan alleging therein that Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 11 they are in possession of WZ929 near Diary Chuna Bhatti, W.H.S., Timber Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
The complainant had previously hired the services of accused for carrying out job work. He permitted the accused to work on a part of plot on daily wages alongwith other workers. The complainant provided compensation/labour charges in cash and the arrangement lasted for 6/8 months. Lateron the intention of accused dishonest and he started proclaiming himself to be in independent possession of the portion of property by creating and fabricating forged document. The accused filed false affidavit in proceedings to get the favourable order in his favour by playing fraud and suppression of material facts about his alleged possession. He knew that such statement was not proved and therefore it is a fit case for registration of FIR. The provisions contained in sections 191, 193, 196, 200 and 209 of IPC are also attracted. The complaint was given to police but no action has been taken.
I have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant. He has placed reliance on law laid down in "Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr." (2005) 4 SCC 370.
I have considered the submissions and gone through the record. The allegations in the complaint are two fold i.e. :
(v) that accused had filed a false affidavit in a civil suit by falsely alleging that he was in possession of property;
(vi) he had forged the documents and submitted them in civil court.
Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 12As far as offences u/s 193, 196, 200 and 209 are concerned, section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking of cognizance, "except on the complaint in writing of that court or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.
Thus, the cognizance of allegations that accused has given false information in the civil court and filed a false affidavit therein cannot be taken by this court directly without compliance of section 195 of Cr.P.C.
The other allegation about forgery of documents is not clearly spelt out in the complaint. There is no allegation as to which of the document were forged by the accused. However, the complainant has filed certified copy of visiting card of Ram Parkash, VoterID Card, Aadhar Card and PAN card. The PAN card does not show the address on it and the copy of visiting card show the address as WZ919, Near Dairy, Chuna Bhatti, Kirti Nagar.
At this stage, it is necessary to note that for commission of offence of forgery that is under 463 IPC, it is necessary that the document alleged to be forged should be false document. The term false document has been defined in section 464 of IPC. It is reproduced as 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 Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 13 electronic record;
(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of such document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by 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 electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or any electronic record or to affix his electronic 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 alteration.
The allegations that the accused had got prepared his visiting card by mentioning the address of complainant do not tantamount to creation of false document. There is no allegation that the accused had forged the signature of complainant or any other person or any of the Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 14 documents or he had altered any document without the consent of its maker. Thus, the allegations do not disclose that accused had committed forgery within the four corners of definition of false document as mentioned above.
The judgment so relied upon by the counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts of present case as the allegations themselves do not disclose commission of offence of forgery.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Sushant Changotra) MM08 (West)/T.H.C. Delhi/10.09.2015 Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 15 Jagdish Lal Bhatia Vs. Yogender Sharma CC No. 651/1 PS: Kirti Nagar 10.09.2015 ORDER Present: Counsel for applicant/complainant .
I have already heard the arguments on maintainability. The present complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. has been filed by stating that accused is running his business from premises bearing no. WZ919, Chuna Bhati Area, Kirti Nagar, Delhi since 1955. The complainant closed his business in terms of direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in "M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India". The complainant stopped doing business on the aforementioned property. However, he remained in possession, there since 1955.
On 24.09.2004, some government officials visited the house of complainant and threatened to take coercive steps. The complainant filed a civil suit no. 314/14 in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi titled as "Sh. Jagdish Lal Bhatia Vs. D.D.A & Ors". It was disposed of by the Hon'ble Curt of Ms. Shefali Sharma, Civil Judge vide order dated 03.08.2011 on the basis of statement of concerned officials.
The complainant received summons from the court of Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Ld. Civil Judge (West) in suit no. CS208/13 titled as "Ram Parkash Kamat & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Lal Bhatia". The said suit was for permanent injunction and it was based on manipulated and fabricated documents. The said suit contained wrong information/statements and false, manipulated, fabricated and forged documents/site plan alleging therein that Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 16 they are in possession of WZ929 near Diary Chuna Bhatti, W.H.S., Timber Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
The complainant had previously hired the services of accused for carrying out job work. He permitted the accused to work on a part of plot on daily wages alongwith other workers. The complainant provided compensation/labour charges in cash and the arrangement lasted for 6/8 months. Lateron the intention of accused dishonest and he started proclaiming himself to be in independent possession of the portion of property by creating and fabricating forged document. The accused filed false affidavit in proceedings to get the favourable order in his favour by playing fraud and suppression of material facts about his alleged possession. He knew that such statement was not proved and therefore it is a fit case for registration of FIR. The provisions contained in sections 191, 193, 196, 200 and 209 of IPC are also attracted. The complaint was given to police but no action has been taken.
I have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant. He has placed reliance on law laid down in "Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr." (2005) 4 SCC 370.
I have considered the submissions and gone through the record. The allegations in the complaint are two fold i.e. :
(vii) that accused had filed a false affidavit in a civil suit by falsely alleging that he was in possession of property;
(viii) he had forged the documents and submitted them in civil court.
Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 17As far as offences u/s 193, 196, 200 and 209 are concerned, section 195 of Cr.P.C. bars taking of cognizance, "except on the complaint in writing of that court or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.
Thus, the cognizance of allegations that accused has given false information in the civil court and filed a false affidavit therein cannot be taken by this court directly without compliance of section 195 of Cr.P.C.
The other allegation about forgery of documents is not clearly spelt out in the complaint. There is no allegation as to which of the document were forged by the accused. However, the complainant has filed certified copy of visiting card of Bhogender Sharma and copy of the PAN card of accused. The PAN card does not show the address on it and the copy of visiting card show the address as WZ919, Near Dairy, Chuna Bhatti, Kirti Nagar.
At this stage, it is necessary to note that for commission of offence of forgery that is under 463 IPC, it is necessary that the document alleged to be forged should be false document. The term false document has been defined in section 464 of IPC. It is reproduced as 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 Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 18 electronic record;
(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of such document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by 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 electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or any electronic record or to affix his electronic 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 alteration.
The allegations that the accused had got prepared his visiting card by mentioning the address of complainant do not tantamount to creation of false document. There is no allegation that the accused had forged the signature of complainant or any other person or any of the Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 19 documents or he had altered any document without the consent of its maker. Thus, the allegations do not disclose that accused had committed forgery within the four corners of definition of false document as mentioned above.
The judgment so relied upon by the counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts of present case as the allegations themselves do not disclose commission of offence of forgery.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Sushant Changotra) MM08 (West)/T.H.C. Delhi/10.09.2015 Jagdish LaL Bhatia Vs. Bihari Ram 20