Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev Kumar Mittal on 7 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. GURMOHINA KAUR
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 95/04 Digitally signed
PS : C.R. Park by GURMOHINA
U/s : 467/468/471/420 r/w 511 IPC
GURMOHINA KAUR
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal
KAUR Date:
Case No. : 88466/2016
2020.02.10
11:20:44 -0600
Date of institution of case : 19.05.2007
Date of reserving the judgment : 14.01.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 07.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 88466/2016
2. Date of Commission of Offence : 2004
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Kotu K.(K.K). Phull,
S/o Sh. Rajender Phull,
R/o 16/8, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi 110008
4. Name,parentage & address of accused : Sanjeev Kumar Mittal,
S/o Sh. R.D. Mittal,
R/o 8, Gyanlok, Tehsil
Chowk, Hapur, UP.
5. Offence complained of : u/s 467/468/471/420 r/w 511 IPC
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : acquitted for the offences
u/s 420 read with 511 IPC and
Section 467 IPC, convicted for
the offences u/s 468/471 IPC
FIR No. 95/04
PS : C.R. Park
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 1
Case of the Prosecution
1. The brief facts of the case are that the present case was registered on the complaint of Kotu (K.K.) Phull, which was sent via an email alleging that his aunt Smt. Ram Pyari, his brother's older sister was like a second mother to him and she expired on 31.08.2002. It was alleged in the complaint that Smt. Ram Pyari had made a Will in his favour of a house in Greater Kailash II (D 50, Greater Kailash Enclave II) and the will was duly registered at the Hauz Khas SubRegistrar's office and that the building sits on a 300 square yards plot, and consists of one bed room, one kitchen and one bathroom. It is further alleged that the complainant had got the property mutated in his name in December 2003 and that the complainant was in the process of getting the property converted into freehold while leaving for United States of America and had given his father Sh. Rajinder Nath Phull, Special and General Power of Attorney to receive the final stamped copy of the conveyance deed from DDA and to register the same at the office of SubRegistrar, Hauz Khas and to manage the property. It is averred by the complainant that he received a phone call on 21.03.2004 that someone was trying to claim the property by claiming that Smt. Ram Pyari had made Will of the property to them and a notice to that effect had reportedly appeared in two Delhi Newspapers (Nav Bharat Times and Hindustan) on 12.03.2004 and was apparently published by an Advocate Jagmit Singh Virk on behalf of his client/accused Sanjeev Kumar.
FIR No. 95/04
PS : C.R. Park
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 2
2. An FIR was duly registered and during investigation, the original application/complaint submitted by accused Sanjeev Kumar on 20.02.2004 to DDA regarding plot no. D50 GK EnclaveII, New Delhi from the DDA was seized and the certified copy of the Will dated 03.5.99 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari was collected from the office of SubRegistrar Mehrauli, New Delhi and the death certificate of Smt. Ram Pyari was verified according to which she expired on 31.08.2002. Further during investigation, the questioned and the specimen and admitted signatures were sent to FSL Rohini for comparison and opinion and expert opinion was received on 02.01.2006 wherein it was opined that Will dated 03.05.1999 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari in favour of complainant Dr. Kotu K Phull regarding the property in question bears the signature of Smt. Ram Pyari and it was also opined that Will dated 11.05.1999 allegedly executed by Smt. Ram Pyari in favour of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal did not bear the signature of Smt. Ram Pyari and it was further opined that the MOU allegedly dated 11.05.1999 executed between Smt. Ram Pyari and Sanjeev Kumar Mittal did not bear the signature of Smt. Ram Pyari but bore the signature of Sanjeev Kumar Mittal. As per chargesheet, FSL report further opined that the complaint/application submitted by accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal to DDA regarding the alleged mutation efforts by some persons with forged documents also bore the signature of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal and the Vakalatnama in favour of Jagmeet Singh Virk also bears the signature of accused Sanjeev Kumar FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 3 Mittal. It is alleged in the chargesheet that as per expert opinion it was concluded that both the documents i.e will and MOU dated 11.05.1999 regarding property in question were forged and MOU was bearing the signature of the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal and that had been proved through the FSL report that the will dated 11.05.1999 in favour of complainant was not a genuine document which was duly executed by Smt. Ram Pyari. It has been stated in the charge sheet that during investigation, that the forged Will and the MOU both dated 11.05.1999 were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Test Cas 19/2004 titled Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. State as genuine in order to cheat the complainant with the sole object to grab the property in question and using the same as genuine thereby dragging the property in dispute so as the cause loss in the market price of the property and inconvenience to the complainant.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court on 19.05.2007.
4. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused person was summoned vide order dated 19.05.2007.
5. After supplying copies of chargesheet and documents and on finding a primafacie case, vide order dated 07.04.2008, charge u/s 467/468/471/420 r/w 511 IPC was ordered to be framed against accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate and prove the charge against the accused FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 4 prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses.
7. PW 1 Kotu Kumar Phull deposed that he was a US Citizen and a NRI and his late Aunt Smt. Ram Pyari was his father real elder sister and though he had stated in his complaint to the police that she was his brother's older sister by mistake. He added that Smt. Ram Pyari owned a house of 300 Sq. yards in GK EnclaveII, bearing House No. D50. He added that Smt. Ram Pyari died on 31.08.2002 but prior to her death, she had executed a will on 03.05.1999 of property no. D50, GK EnclaveII in his favour MarkA. He added that he got changed the mutation of the said property in his favour in December 2003 vide mutation MarkB and when the said property was about the converted to be freehold, he had left India and hence he had given a SPA to his father qua the said property to receive a final stamp copy of conveyance from DDA, which was to be registered at Sub Registrar Office, Hauz Khas. He added that on 20/21.03.2004 he received a telephone call from Delhi that some unknown person was trying to claim his above property by claiming that Smt. Ram Pyari had executed the will of the said property to him. He deposed that in the month of March, as per his information, an Advocate of one Mr. Sanjeev Kumar published a notice that Smt. Ram Pyari had executed a MOU and will and the copy of the said public notice was MarkC. He added that accused had no relation with him or Smt. Ram Pyari or any member of his family. The email by which the complaint was made by him was Ex.PW1/A and his application for freehold of the said property was FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 5 MarkD to DDA. He also stated that the original will was placed in the file which was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He brought the original mutation document, copy of which Ex.PW1/B and the certified copy of will dated 03.05.1999 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari was Ex.PW1/C. He added that Smt. Ram Pyari was issue less and treated him like her son and she had never mentioned the name of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal to him. During his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that his aunt Ram Pyari became owner of the property situated at GK Enclave II as his father had transferred the title/ownership documents in her name may be in the year 1976. He added that no consideration had taken place since his father had gifted the property to his late Aunt. He added that he had executed the GPA as well as SPA in favour of his father for the said property. He further stated that before registration of FIR, the accused had never sent any intimation/letter or notice in respect to the property to him personally and he had never met the accused personally before or after registration of case except court appearances. He also stated during his cross examination the accused had never threatened him in any manner and no one had ever approached him or on behalf of the accused in respect to the property in question. He admitted that he had sold the property in question around 2014 and that further admitted that he had no suffered any financial loss in respect to the property in question and did not have any personal grudge with the accused in person and he had no problem if the court took lenient view in FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 6 favour of accused.
8. PW 2 Sh. Manmohan was examined under Section 299 Cr.P.C, wherein he deposed that on 23.04.2004 he had joined the investigation of the case and IO had showed him a will dated 03.05.1999 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari in favour of her nephew Kottu K Kumar and he along with Dinesh Kumar had signed a will as a witness. He identified his signature on the will Ex.PW1/C and also identified the signature of Smt. Ram Pyari.
9. PW 3 Sh. Dinesh Kumar relied upon Ex. PW 1/C which bears his signatures at points B1, B2 and B3 and added that this document was executed in Mehrauli. He further deposed that he knew the executant of this document as he used to supply milk in her house and he witnessed the document Ex. PW 1/C at the instance of the executant. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel he has stated that in the year 2000 he had started supplying the milk to his customers from his depot. He added that the executant used to reside at D50, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi and he had never received any notice or call for joining the investigation in the present case. He denied that he was not the attesting witness of Ex.PW1/C and that no such Will had been prepared. He also stated that K.K. Phull was the nephew of the complainant and further added that the Will had been prepared and he was told to sign as witness. He denied the suggestion that he was not an attesting witness of Ex.PW1/C.
10. PW 4 Satpal Baroota deposed that they were engaged in the business of FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 7 advertisement by the name and style of Publico Advertisement in the year 2004 and he was working as accountant. He added that they had published one advertisement in the newspaper but he did not remember the name of that newspaper. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State as he was not disclosing the complete facts of the case. During cross examination he has stated that the advertisement Mark C was published in the newspaper and one letter which is mark 4X was taken from one advocate at the time of publishing of advertisement. He admitted that he had handed over the advertisement mark C and letter mark 4X to the IO. He denied that he was deliberately identifying signatures of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal on document Mark C. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel he has stated that they sent the photocopy of letter of advocate to the Publishing House for publication and they kept the original one in their office. He added that the record of application / letter for publication was not maintained by him in the office or that he had no authority letter to hand over the paper to any person including the police.
11. PW 5 HC Digamber Singh deposed that on 19.04.2004, he was posted as duty officer and he received the tehrir through Ct. Vir singh sent by Insp. R.C. Meena and he made endorsement on it. He relied upon copy of FIR Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/A respectively.
12. PW5 - Sh. Neelambaran. K deposed that on 22.04.2004, he was posted as UDC, Vigilance Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi and on the said day, FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 8 in compliance of notice of IO No. 603, EOW/ Crime Branch dated 21.04.2004, he had handed over the original application of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal, S/o Sh. R.D. Mittal as it was asked for by the IO, after completion of formalities. He added that IO had seized the above said original application of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal, Ex. PW5/B which was filed in DDA vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A is Ex. PW5/B. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel he stated that he got posted in Vigilance Branch, DDA in the year 2000 and he had not directly received the notice of IO bearing no. 603 dated 21.04.2004. He stated that he took receipt from the IO on the copy of seizure memo and placed the same in his file.
13. PW 6 Ct. Bijender Kumar deposed that on 18.05.2004, he was posted as Ct. at LBR Section EOW, Qutub Institutional Area, Udyog Sadan, Delhi and on that day, he had joined investigation of the present case with IO Inspector R C Meena. He added that on that day, Advocate Sh. Jagmeet Singh Virk reached in their office and in his presence handed over to the IO one original Vakaltnama in the name of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal s/o late Sh. R. Das, r/o 8, Gyan Lok, Hapur, U.P which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A and bearing signatures of Advocate Sh. Jagmeet Singh Virk at point B. He further deposed that the original vakalatnama seized as abovesaid vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A is Ex.PW6/B and IO recorded his statement to that effect. During cross FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 9 examination conducted by ld. Defence counsel he deposed that he did not know whether IO had given any notice to Advocate Sh. Jagmeet Singh Virk to join the investigation and it must have been in the knowledge of IO. He denied that he never joined investigation of the present case with IO and that Sh. Jagmeet Singh Virk never came in their office in his presence or never handed over any document to the IO in his presence.
14. PW 7 Insp. Rakehs Kumar deposed that on 22.04.2004, he was posted as SI at LBR section EOW/Crime Branch at Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi and on that day Sh. Neelambram. K., UDC in Vigilance branch DDA reached in their office and handed over IO one original application of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal s/o Sh. R D Mittal, r/o 1219, Katra, Satnarayan, Chandani Chowk, Delhi filed with Chief Vigilance Officer, DDA, Vikas Sadan. He added that IO seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/A and the original application seized as abovesaid is already Ex.PW5/B. He deposed that on 26.07.2004, he again joined investigation of the present case with IO and that on said day accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal reached their office and during investigation, the accused handed over IO Inspector R C Meena photocopy of will dated 11.05.1999 of Rampyari Devi, photocopy of MoU dated 11.05.1999 between Smt. Rampyari Devi and accused and photocopy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in probate case no. 19/2004 titled as Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs. State & Ors. He deposed that IO seized abovesaid documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A and added that FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 10 the copy of will seized was Ex.PW7/B (02 pages), copy of MoU seized as abovesaid was Ex.PW7/C, copy of order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court produced by accused and seized. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel he stated that IO had issued a notice/letter to DDA and in compliance of the said notice, Mr. Neelambram joined investigation and had handed over to IO original application already Ex.PW5/B as abovesaid in his presence. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Neelambram did not sign Ex.PW5/A in his presence and that he never joined investigation of present case or no documents were handed over to IO in his presence.
15. PW 8 Sh. L.N. Mutneja deposed that on 07.08.2004, he was posted as Manager, PNB, Shankar Road, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi branch and on that day, in pursuance to the notice u/s 91 Cr.PC dated 06.08.2004 given by IO Inspector R C Meena, he had handed over original specimen signature slip of Smt. Ram Piyari and Smt. Neelam Phull pertaining to account no. 32901 Ex.PW8/A. He added that he also handed over original specimen signature card showing address of Smt. Ram Piyari bearing the signature of Smt. Ram Piyari and Neelam Phull of abovementioned account number which was available on record with the bank branch, Ex.PW8/B. He deposed that IO had seized both the abovesaid documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C. During cross examination conducted by ld. Defence counsel he admitted that the letter dated 06.08.2004 was not addressed to him personally by the IO and also that Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B were not in his FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 11 custody and the same were in the custody of Saving Fund Incharge of their branch. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
16. PW 9 Sh. Nikhil, Dealing Assistant,Government of NCT of Delhi, Karol Bagh Zone, Department Sub Registrar (Birth and death), New Delhi relied upon summoned record i.e record of death report of Late Smt. Rampyari dated 31.08.2002 registered with the department vide registration no. 783 dated 09.09.2002 and added that the aforesaid details had been entered in the hospital death register no. IV at serial no. 18844 and certified copy of the same was Ex.PW9/A. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel he has stated that he was the Record Keeper in the Department of Death & Birth, SubRegistrar, Karol Bagh since year 2013. He admitted that the Ex.PW9/A has not been entered by him and that the department did not maintain any identity proof of the deceased.
17. PW 10 Retd. ACP Sh. Rajbir Singh Jakhar deposed that in the month of October 2004 he was posted as Inspector LBR Section, Crime Branch, Delhi and in the said month he was handed over further investigation of the present case after Inspector R C Meena. He added that during investigation on 21.12.2004, he seized documents upon production by Advocate Abhishek Agarwal on behalf of complainant K K Phull (Retd. Col.) vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and the original passport of Ram Pyari which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/A and mentioned at serial no. 1 was now Ex.PW10/A1, the saving bank passbook of account no. 1418529 mentioned FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 12 at serial no. 2 was Ex.PW10/A2, the saving bank passbook of account no. 1329012 mentioned at serial no. 3 was Ex.PW10/A3, the saving bank passbook of account no. 1397633 mentioned at serial no. 4 was Ex.PW10/A4, the original letter no. F/6(167)78/EPRRR/CS/DDA481 dated 20.02.2004 and mentioned at serial no. 5 was now Ex.PW10/A5. He further deposed that during investigation on 18.01.2005, he had seized original perpetual sublease dated 25.04.1973 (containing 12 pages out of which 10 pages were typed, 11th page bear stamp and signature and 12 th page was blank upon production by Abhishek Aggarwal on behalf of complainant in his office, vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. He stated that the said original perpetual sublease (running into 12 pages back to back) seized as above stated was Ex.PW10/C and during investigation he had tried to join accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal in the investigation and had issued him notices but he did not join investigation, therefore, he filed application for the cancellation of his anticipatory bail in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He further added that during investigation on 25.11.2004, he obtained the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to take photographs of the will and other documents submitted by accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in probate case filed by him and accordingly on 06.12.2004 at his instance, Ct. A K Roy (Photographer, Fingerprint Bureau, Malviya Nagar, took photograph of the Will and other documents submitted by accused in the probate case in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the presence of then SubRegistrar, Hon'ble FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 13 High Court of Delhi. He deposed that during investigation, he also recorded statement of advocate Abhishek Aggarwal and Ct. A K Roy and on 24.12.2004, he had seized 26 photographs and 18 negatives upon its production by Ct. Ajay Kumar which he collected from Ct. A K Roy, vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D. He further added that during investigation, Ld counsel for accused Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal also produced original Will of Ram Pyari Devi executed in favour of complainant K K Phull and insisted that he could not deposit/hand over the original Will to him as he required it to file in the probate case filed on behalf of complainant in probate case filed by the accused in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, thereafter, witness obtained permission and got photographs of the original Will of Ram Pyari Devi as produced by counsel of complainant Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal on 22.12.2004 at Fingerprint Bureau, Malviya Nagar by Ct. A K Roy (Photographer). He also stated that he had also seized the developed photographs upon production by Ct. Ajay Kumar after receiving it from Fingerprint Bureau, Malviya Nagar vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/E, thereafter, he sent the already seized documents alongwith specimen writing/signature of accused Sanjeev Mittal and two set of photographs of questioned documents submitted on behalf of complainant and accused vide forwarding letter memo no. 19/RACP/LBR/EOW Crime Branch, New Delhi dated 18.01.2005 which was Ex.PW10/F. He stated that during investigation, the request letter for handwriting/document examination was attached with abovesaid forwarding FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 14 letter was Ex.PW10/F1 and he had recorded statement of Ct. Ajay Kumar. He added that the 10 photographs with 18 negatives of photographs taken by Ct. A K Roy on 06.12.2004 placed on record were Ex.PW10/X (colly), the 04 photographs with 04 negatives of photographs taken by Ct. A K Roy on 22.12.2004 at FPB, Malviya Nagar and placed on record were Ex.PW10/Y (colly). During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he admitted that Ex.PW10/B did not bear the signature of the person who had handed over to him the seized documents and he was not aware about the fate of his application filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail of accused. He stated that accused never joined investigation before him and he did not remember whether he got photographed the original Will or copy of the Will filed by accused in probate case in Hon'ble Delhi High Court. However, he got photographed the Will which was filed by accused in his probate case after taking due permission from Registrar, Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
18. PW 11 Sh. Devak Ram deposed that on 25.08.2005, he was posted as Senior Scientific Assistant (documents) FSL, GNCT of Delhi, Rohini, Delhi and on that day, vide letter no. 522/RACP/LBR/EOWCrime Branch, New Delhi dated 17.08.2005 in connection with present FIR no. 95/2004 PS C.R. Park questioned documents from Q1 to Q13 standards S1 to S18 of Sanjeev Kumar Mittal and admitted documents A1 to AA7 of Smt. Ram Piyari were received in his office by him through proper channel. He added that as per the questionnaire with forwarding letter he had thoroughly FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 15 examined the questioned documents with sample and admitted documents properly and in detail mentioned in his report, with scientific instrument available in the laboratory as per standard practice and procedure and he gave his detailed report dated 27.12.2005 Ex.PW11/A (running into five pages). He further added that as per his report, the person who wrote signature marked A1 to A7 did not write the questioned signature Marked Q1 to Q3 but wrote the questioned signature Mark Q4 to Q7. He stated that the person who wrote signature Mark S1 to S18 also wrote signature marked Q8 to Q10. He stated that the detailed reasons of his report was elaborately mentioned in his report Ex.PW11/A. He stated that the questioned documents (photographs) Q1, Q2, Q3, Q8, Q4, Q5, Q6 and Q7 were pasted on a single sheet which was exhibited as Ex.PW11/B collectively. (7 photographs) and the documents (photocopy) Q4 to Q7 was Ex.PW11/C (running into three pages). He deposed that the document containing signature / writing Q9, Q12 and Q13 was already Ex.PW5/B, the document containing signature Q10 was already Ex.PW6/B and the document containing signature Q11 was already Ex.PW11/C1. He stated that the document containing signature Q1 was Ex.PW11/C2 and the document containing signature Q2 was Ex.PW11/C3. He deposed that the document containing signature Q3 and Q8 was Ex.PW11/C4 and admitted documents and admitted signature from A1 to A3 were already Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/A and specimen signature S1 to S18 were Ex.PW11/D1 to FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 16 Ex.PW11/D18 was bearing stamp and marking of FSL at point A. He added that the abovementioned forwarding letter of police was Ex.PW11/E (running into three pages). He added that in the present case further documents were received by him by forwarding letter bearing no. 135 / RACP/ALBR EOW Crime Branch, New Delhi dated 28.02.2007 Ex.PW11/F with questioned documents marked as Q14 and Q15, specimen signature Mark S19 to S 119 of Sh. Ashok Sharma and he thoroughly examined the questioned documents in comparison with specimen signature but it was not found possible to express any definite opinion on signature Mark Q14 and Q15 in comparison with specimen signatures S19 to S119. His detailed report to the said effect was Ex.PW11/G. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that he did not remember as to who deposited the documents in FSL, however, the same was mentioned on the record and he had not brought the said record today as it was not summoned. He stated that he did not remember the date as to when he had examined the questioned documents, however, the completion of examination of questioned documents was mentioned on his report i.e. 02.01.2006, the questioned documents which were examined by him had been mentioned in his report. He further stated that IO had not provided the specimen signature of late Smt. Ram Pyari and that the questioned document from Q1 to Q3 were with regard to will dated 11.05.1999 and memorandum of understanding dated 11.05.1999. He admitted that the signature of Q1 to Q FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 17 7 did not match with the specimen signature of S1 to S18 and admitted that the contents of Ex.PW5/B were not examined by him.
19. PW 12 ASI Rajan P.K. deposed that on 16.09.2005, he was posted as Ct. / photographer, finger print bureau Malviya Nagar, Delhi and on that day, he had joined investigation in present case with the IO SI Anil Samota and Sr. Scientific Asstt. Sh. Devak Ram from FSL Rohini and they reached in the court of Sh. J.P.S. Malik, Joint Registrar, Hon'ble Delhi High Court where with the permission of court he took photographs of one MOU and one Will both dated 11.05.1999. He stated that the two photographs of signature of Smt. Ram Pyari as appearing on Will dated 11.05.1999 were taken in the abovementioned Registrar Court were already collectively marked as Ex.PW11/B as part of collective seven photographs, which were again distinctively exhibited as Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B. The two photographs of signature of Smt. Ram Pyari and Sanjeev as appearing on MOU dated 11.05.1999 and taken in the abovementioned from the Registrar Court were already collectively marked as Ex.PW11/B as part of collective seven photographs, which were exhibited as Ex.PW12/C. He stated that on 06.10.2005, he alongwith IO reached in the office of sub registrar Mehrauli, Delhi where in the presence of Sh. Devak Ram Sr. Scientific Asstt. (document) FSL Rohini, as per instructions he took photographs of signature of Smt. Ram Pyari appearing on the will dated 03.05.1999 as registered in the abovementioned office which were already part of Ex.PW11/B (colly 7 FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 18 photographs), and which were distinctively exhibited as Ex.PW12/D to Ex.PW12/G and marked as Q4 to Q7. He stated that he took all the abovementioned photographs on the instructions of Sh. Devak Ram and after developing the same, handed them over to FSL, Rohini. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel, he has stated that he was served with the notice issued by the IO of the present case to join the investigation in his office. He stated that the said notice was lying the office and he was not carrying the same.
20. PW 13 Sh. Ram Chander Meena deposed that in the month of April, 2004, he was posted as Inspector in LBR Section, EOW, Crime Branch, Qutub Insitutional Area, New Delhi and in the present case, one complaint of Mr. Kotu (KK) Phull was received through email in the office of CP, Delhi vide diary number 315 email dated 23.03.2004 and one reminder email was received by diary no. 318, he added that email dated 23.03.2004 which were sent to their Unit for enquiry and was finally marked to him and after going through the contents of the said complaint already Ex.PW1/A, he prepared the rukka on prima facie finding the case being made out for offences u/s 420/511 IPC vide his endorsement Ex.PW13/A and got the FIR registered. He stated that during investigation, he had seized alleged advertisement matter duly signed by accused Sanjay Kumar Mittal already Ex.PW11/C1 and one letter of Advocate Sh. Jagmeet Singh Virk already Mark 4X was which he seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He added that during investigation, FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 19 he sent letter Ex.PW13/B to Director Vigilance DDA to provide original complaint of Sanjeev Kumar Mittal filed in their office and in reply of same Mr. Neelabaran K of Vigilance Branch DDA produced him the said original application of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal which was already Ex.PW5/B which he seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He stated that during investigation, he also seized original vakalatnama in the name of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal as client and Sh. Jagmeet Singh Virk as authorised advocate which was already Ex.PW6/B on its production by Sh. Jagmeet Singh Virk, Advocate on 18.05.2004 and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A. He stated that during investigation on 26.07.2004, accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal produced before him the photocopy of Will dated 11.05.1999 of Ram Pyari already Ex.PW7/B, photocopy of MOU of even date between Smt. Ram Pyari and accused already Ex.PW7/C and photocopy of order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in probate case no. 19/2004 already Ex.PW7/D, all duly signed by accused at point X which he seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He further added that during investigation, he sent notice to branch manager, PNB, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi to produce original account opening form with photograph and specimen signature of account holder Smt. Ram Pyari which was Ex.PW13/C. He stated that in response to said letter concerned official Mr. L.N. Muthreja, produced before him the original papers pertaining to account of Smt. Ram Pyari and Neelam Phul which were already Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW8/C. FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 20 He stated that he obtained specimen handwriting and signature of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal on 23.07.2004 on sheets already Ex.PW11/D1 to Ex.PW11/D18 and he recorded statement of witnesses, thereafter, he was transferred from LBR Section EOW and he handed over case file to MHCR concerned. PW13 stated during his cross examination that he had received the hard copies of emails dated 21.03.2004 and reminder dated 22.03.2004 vide diary number 315 E and 318 E from the office of the CP Delhi. He admitted that he had not received any supporting certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act for the emails dated 21.03.2004 and 22.03.2004 and the FIR was registered as per his endorsement by PS C.R. Park dated 19.04.2004. He admitted that he had not seized or received the original Will and MOU dated 11.05.1999 from anyone and he had recorded the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of the persons involved in the present matter like bank official, DDA officials, Police official namely SI Rakesh Kumar and two public witnesses namely Manmohan Singh who was the witness of the Will dated 03.05.1999. He denied that he was deposing falsely or that he had never collected the aforesaid documents from the concerned department or that none of the aforesaid witnesses joined investigation before him in the present case.
21. PW 14 ACP Anil Samota deposed that on 01.04.2005, he was posted as SI in EOW, LBR Section, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi and that on that day, further investigation of present case was marked to him after IO Insp.
FIR No. 95/04
PS : C.R. Park
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 21
R.S. Jhakar. He stated that during investigation, he had sent documents already collected by previous IO for examination to FSL Rohini vide forwarding letter already Ex.PW11/E. He further added that during investigation, on 16.09.2005, with due permission, he got photographs of the signature of Ram Pyari and accused Sanjeev Kumar appearing on the Will and MOU dated 11.05.1999 done through photographer/Constable Rajan PK in presence and directions of Sh. Devak Ram, Senior Scientific Assistant, FSL, Rohini, in the court of Sh. J.P.S. Malik, Joint Registrar, Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He added that during investigation on 06.10.2005, he also got photographs of signature of Ram Pyari to be taken through photographer / constable Rajan PK in presence and directions of Sh. Devak Ram, Senior Scientific Assistant, FSL, Rohini, which appeared on the Will dated 03.05.1999 and registered in the office of Sub Registrar Mehrauli, Delhi, at said office. He also stated that during investigation, he formally arrested accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A and admitted him on bail as per directions of the court in the disposal of his anticipatory bail application. He deposed that he had also tried to search for the witnesses mentioned on the Will and MOU of Smt. Ram Pyari both dated 11.05.1999 as filed in Hon'ble Delhi High Court in probate/ test case and had got the addresses of Rajat Kumar, R/o BH23/C, Shalimar Bagh and C70, Jawahar Park, New Delhi verified through Ct. Rajender but the address of Rajat Kumar was not found in existence and no such Rajat Kumar was FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 22 available in the said locality, whereas at Jawahar park address one Ashok Sharma was found residing. He added that interrogation was made from Ashok Sharma who denied signing any such document mentioned above, however, his specimen signatures were taken on sheets already marked as S19 to S21 and now exhibited as Ex.PW14/X1 to Ex.PW14/X3 and he had sent them to FSL for expert opinion and he had obtained two FSL results Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/G in the present case from FSL, Rohini, which he placed on file. He admitted that address of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal i.e. 1219, Sat Narayan, Chandani Chowk, Delhi as mentioned in the alleged Will and MOU both dated 11.05.1999 was also verified through Ct. Rajender vide his letter Ex.PW14/B and obtained its reply from Constable Rajender on the back side of said letter vide portion encircled in red ink at portion X. He stated that as per the verification, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar had never resided at the aforementioned address which was commercial hub / market complex and not residential building and his application to Sub Registrar, Hauz Khas for photography and certified copy of Will dated 03.05.99 of property in question was Ex.PW14/C. He further deposed that in pursuance of the said notice/letter Ex.PW14/C dated 06.10.2005, he visited SubRegistrar office on same day and he got photographs of the abovesaid documents conducted and also seized them on production by then Registrar. He also added that the true copy of Will of Smt Ram Pyari dated 03.05.199 was Ex.PW14/D running into two pages and during investigation, he had also sent notice to FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 23 Registrar, Birth and death, Karol Bagh Zone, New Delhi Ex.PW14/E regarding verification of death of Smt. Ram Pyari and obtained its verification report on the same notice vide portion encircled at portion X as per which the date of death of Smt. Ram Pyari was 31.08.2002. He further added that during investigation, he had recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, he filed the main charge sheet against accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal and after receiving the second FSL report, he also filed the supplementary charge sheet in this case before this court. Witness correctly identified the accused in the court. During cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel he has stated that he received the case file from the department after transfer of the earlier IO R.S. Jhakhar on 01.04.2005 and he met several times with complainant, however, he did not remember the exact dates. He admitted that he had not received any certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of the emails dated 21.03.2004 and 22.03.2004 and that no such certificate was available on the case file received by him after transfer of the previous IO.
22. Accused did not dispute and admitted the factum of registration of Will registered vide number 582 additional book no. III, volume no. IX, pages 185 186 Ex.PW14/D and handing over / seizure memo dated 21.12.2004 Ex.PW10/A vide which advocate Abhishek Aggarwal handed over the documents to the IO mentioned on the seizure memo vide his separate statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 95/04
PS : C.R. Park
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 24
23. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein he denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He added that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that letter dated 20.02.2004 was bearing his signatures, but the contents of the said letter was not written or submitted by him before DDA. He added that he had not executed any vakalatnama in favour of Mr. Jagmeet Singh Virk in relation to the publication with respect to property. Despite opportunity, no witness was examined by the accused in his defence and accordingly defence evidence was closed.
24. During final arguments it has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution has able to establish the ingredients as alleged in the charge beyond reasonable doubts.
25. Per contra it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused that the offence of forgery had not been established in the present case qua the accused. He relied upon the FSL report and urged that as per the FSL report no offence of forgery u/s 467 and 468 IPC were made out qua the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal as he was not the maker of the forged document. Ld. Counsel for accused also relied upon the judgment titled as Shiela Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and Anr in Crl. Appl. No. 359360 of 2010 in his defence and he further argued that since the offence of forgery was not made out against the accused u/s 467 and 468 IPC, the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal could also not be convicted under Section 471 IPC as the same FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 25 has also not been established or proved by the prosecution. It has been further argued that the original will had not been placed on record by the IO till date. Ld. Defence counsel has also taken his defence that the offence of attempt of cheating was also not made out against accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal as the essential ingredients of the alleged cheating were fulfilled in the present case as there is no wrongful loss caused to the complainant and that the accused should be acquitted in the present case.
26. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
27. Perusal of the charges reflects that the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 467/468/471/420 r/w 511 IPC. The relevant provisions of law are as follows:
(a) u/s 467 IPC : Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principle, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(b) u/s 468 IPC : Whoever commits forgery, (intending that the document or FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 26 electronic record forged) shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing hat it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(c) u/s 471 IPC : Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (document or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record).
(d) u/s 420 IPC : Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole of any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(e) u/s 511 IPC : Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, an in such attempts does any act towards the commission of the offfence, shall , where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence or FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 27 with both.
28. It is pertinent to mention that the charge has been framed against the accused Sanjeev kumar Mittal qua the offences punishable u/s 467 IPC on the ground that he had forged the MOU dated 11.05.1999 Ex.PW11/C4 and Will dated 11.05.1999 Ex.PW11/C2 and Ex.PW11/C3 pertaining to property no. D50, GK II Enclave, New Delhi with the intend to use the said impugned forged Will and forged MOU before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the alleged forged letter dated 20.02.2004 before DDA. The accused was also charged for offence u/s 468 IPC for using the aforesaid forged documents for the purpose of cheating and was further charged u/s 471 IPC as he had dishonestly used as genuine, the aforesaid forged Will and MOU both dated 11.05.1999 in the probate case titled as Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. the State and Ors., case no. 19/04 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi when he had reasons to believe that both the alleged Will and MOU were forged at the time of using the same. Infact the copies / photographs of alleged forged Will as well as forged MOU were obtained by the IO during investigation after taking due permission of the Ld. Registrar of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is not even a disputed fact that these documents were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and photographs and copies of which were taken and retrieved during investigation of the case after taking due permission by the concerned police official.
29. Perusal of the FSL report Ex.PW11/A, shows that it has been opined that FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 28 the signatures of Smt. Ram Pyari on questioned documents i.e. the alleged Will and MOU dated 11.05.2019 did not match with the admitted signatures of Ram Pyari and, therefore, the impugned Will and MOU dated 11.05.1999 was found to be not genuine. Further, the report of FSL also opines that the signatures of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal were found on letter purportedly written by accused to DDA dated 25.02.2004, Ex.PW5/B. The accused has admitted his signatures on letter dated 25.02.2004 in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C but has denied the contents therein. Furthermore, admittedly as per the FSL report, the signature of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal have not been found on the alleged forged Will Ex.PW11/C2 and Ex.PW11/C3 but his signatures have been found on the MOU Ex.PW11/C4 as per FSL report Ex.PW11/A.
30. It requires mentioning that the purported letter written to DDA is dated 25.02.2004, which is Ex.PW5/B, is a letter written to Chief Vigilance Officer, Vikas Sadan by accused Sanjeev Kumar bearing the signature wherein he has raised objection and it has been mentioned in the aforesaid letter that he had purchased the property no. D50, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part II measuring 300 sq. yards from Smt. Ram Pyari through agreement to sell and that the allottee had given all documents including her Will, GPA and DDA documents in his name through Sub Registrar office and that he had come to know that some unknown person had shown himself to be her niece and mutated the abovesaid property from DDA and thereby trying to freehold that FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 29 property on forged papers and had requested the concerned official to stop the activity to convert the property into freehold. It is pertinent to mention that the accused has stated in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C that he had not written the contents of the impugned letter Ex.PW5/B thereof and he has even denied the contents therein but no evidence has been led by the accused to prove or show that the impugned letter Ex.PW5/B was not written on behalf or at behest of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal.
31. Moreover, perusal of the deposition of PW 7 Insp. Rakesh Kumar categorically reflects that he has stated that on 26.07.2004, accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal reached at their office and handed over to IO Insp. R.C. Meena, photocopy of Will dated 11.05.1999 of Rampyari Devi, photocopy of MOU dated 11.05.1999 between Smt. Rampyari Devi and accused and photocopy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in probate case no. 19/2004 titled as Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. State & ors. which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. Infact, PW12 ASI Rajan also deposed during his testimony that on 16.09.2005, he had joined the investigation in the present case with IO SI Anil Samota and Sr. Scientific Assistant Devak Ram from FSL Rohini and they had gone to the court of Sh. J.P.S. Malik, Joint Registrar Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein with the permission of the court they had taken photographs of one MOU and one Will both dated 11.05.1999. Furthermore, it also took photographs / signatures of Smt. Rampyari appearing on Will dated 11.05.1999. He also stated during his FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 30 cross examination that he had gone alongwith Sh. Devak Ram, Sr. Scientific Asstt and had taken the photographs of the original Will and MOU both dated 11.05.1999. Infact, it also requires mentioning that the IO / ACP Anil Samota has also deposed as PW14 that the address of accused Sanjeev Kumar as mentioned in the alleged Will, and MOU dated Ex.PW11/C4, Ex.PW11/C2, Ex.PW11/C3 both dated 11.05.1999 was verified and as per the verification, accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal was found to be never residing at the address so provided. Also PW14 has deposed that during investigation, he had also tried to search the witnesses mentioned in the alleged MOU and Will of Smt. Rampyari as filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and he had got the address of Rajat Kumar verified but his address was not found in existence and with respect to the other witnesses Ashok Sharma, it was revealed by Sh. Ashok Sharma during interrogation that he had not signed any of such aforementioned documents. It is worth mentioning that no question pertaining to the aforesaid facts and investigation so carried but were put during cross examination of these witnesses by Ld. Defence Counsel.
32. Admittedly, the original alleged Will and MOU both dated 11.05.1999 have not been seized and placed on record in the present case and the same is corroborated by the cross examination of PW13 Retd. ACP Ram Chander Meen who was the one of IO in the present case but it is also not a disputed fact that during investigation the photographs of the original alleged forged MOU and forged Will both dated 11.05.1999 were obtained from the Hon'ble FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 31 High Court of Delhi in probate case filed by the accused himself in case no. 19/2004. Infact, as already discussed, the accused himself also provided during investigation the copy of the alleged Will or MOU as has come in the deposition of PW7 Insp. Rakesh Kumar. The accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal has never denied nor disputed filing before the Hon'ble High Court the alleged forged Will and MOU in the probate case. Therefore, non filing of the allegedly forged Will in original alongwith MOU both dated 11.05.1999 does not negate or contradict the prosecution case. Furthermore, the signature of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal on the allegedly forged MOU dated 11.05.1999, has been corroborated as per the FSL report as discussed earlier. Even the Will dated 11.05.1999 Ex.PW11/C2 and Ex.PW11/C3 was found to be not genuine as per the opinion of FSL, even though the signature of accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal did not match on the impugned Will. More so, the signatures of Smt. Rampyari Devi were admittedly not found to be genuine on both the MOU and Will dated 11.05.1999 and this fact has not been disputed nor denied by the defence.
33. Infact, the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal has also not denied his signatures on the letter dated 25.02.2004, Ex.PW5/B written to Chief Vigilance Officer DDA. It requires mentioning as already discussed the accused has not disputed or denied his signatures on the aforesaid documents which infact have also been corroborated by the FSL report Ex.PW11/A, however, the accused has denied the contents of the letter. The very fact that the accused FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 32 has admitted and accepted his signature on Ex.PW5/B shows that he had knowledge of the objections of the letter and merely by disputing the contents therein, he cannot take the plea that the aforesaid letter was not written on his behalf or at his behest.
34. Qua the offence u/s 467 IPC, it is pertinent to mention that the offence of forgery with respect to Will Ex.PW11/C2 and Ex.PW11/C3 have not been conclusively established against accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal with the present case since as per the FSL report, the signatures of the accused did not match with that of the signature of the accused purportedly present on the alleged forged Will Ex.PW11/C2. Infact, though it has been proved during evidence and that the impugned Will dated 11.05.19999 Ex.PW11/C3 was not genuine and did not bear the original and genuine signatures of Smt. Rampyari Devi, the offence of forgery of valuable security or Will u/s 467 IPC has not been conclusively established in the present case qua accused Sanjeev kumar Mittal as no conclusive evidence has come on record to show that he was the maker of the alleged forged Will dated 11.05.1999 which was a valuable security in terms of Section 467 IPC. The accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal is accordingly acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC as the charge of forgery of a valuable security has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts.
35. With respect to the offence u/s 468 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the ingredients of the offence u/s 463 IPC for the offence of FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 33 committing of forgery with a particular intend, the intend being that the document should have been used for the purpose of cheating is required to be fulfilled. What is material is the intention of the person committing forgery. The prosecution in order to prove the offence under Section 468 IPC has to establish (1) that the accused committed forgery and (2) that he did so much an intention that the document forged shall be used the purpose of cheating. It has been proved on the basis of evidence lead during trial that the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal in the present case forged the MOU dated 11.05.1999 Ex.PW11/C4 executed between him and Smt. Rampyari qua the property D50, GK Enclave II, New Delhi and also filed the same himself before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a probate proceedings bearing case no. 19/2004 with the intend to cheat and get unlawful gain for himself. The will dated 03.05.1999 executed between the complainant K.K Phull and Late Smt. Ram Pyari has been found genuine as per the FSL report as this fact has never been disputed during enture trial. As already discussed above, no evidence has been led by the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal to show that no such alleged MOU dated 11.05.1999 Ex.PW11/C4 was purportedly signed by him or that he had not filed the alleged forged documents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the present case, even the witnesses to the MOU were not found at the address available and one witness denied signing the document. The fact that the accused submitted a forged MOU and Will before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court where even the witnesses FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 34 mentioned in the impugned forged documents were not found in existence at the address so provided or denied attesting any document further corroborates the allegations that the accused made a forged MOU and filed the same before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court alongwith a forged Will in a probate proceedings with intend to commit cheating. No defence has been lead by accused in this regard. In view of the aforesaid fact, the offence u/s 468 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case qua accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal.
36. With respect to the offence u/s 471 IPC, it has been proved that the impugned forged Will and MOU both dated 11.05.1999 had been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CC no. 19/2004 titled as Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. State & ors. wherein the aforesaid impugned Will and MOU were dishonestly used as genuine knowing that the same were forged documents by the accused. The Investigating officers have infact stated that during their evidence as PW7, PW13 that they had collected the photographs of the impugned forged Will and MOU dated 11.05.1999 from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with the permission of Learned Joint Registrar. Infact as already discussed earlier the copy of the alleged MOU and Will dated 11.05.1999 were handed over to the Investigating Officer by the accused himself during investigation and this fact has never been denied or admitted by the accused during investigation. Filing of forged documents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi itself imputes knowledge on the part of the FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 35 accused alongwith his dishonest intention. Sufficient evidence has come on record that the accused persons filed the forged documents which he knew or had reasons to believe to be forged and had presented the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dishonestly using the same as genuine. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal is hereby convicted for the offfence punishable u/s 471 IPC.
37. Qua the charge u/s 420 read with 511 IPC it is seen that the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal has been charged for attempting to cheat by using the forged letter 20.02.2004 Ex.PW5/B before the concerned DDA officials. PW1 who is the complainant in the present case K.K. Phull has stated in his examination in chief that his application for freehold of the said property was in process at DDA in February, 2004 and the DDA stopped processing the same on the objections raised by the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mitttal wherein he had claimed that he had purchased the said property from Smt. Rampyari in the year 1998. No question was put in this regard by Ld. Defence Counsel to the complainant / PW1 and this fact was never denied or disputed by Ld. Defence counsel. However, the concerned officials of DDA PW5 Sh. Neelambaran . K. did not testify or depose anything regarding the stopping of the mutation proceedings by the DDA officials on receipt of letter Ex.PW5/B. Infact he has stated during his cross examination that he had not conducted any enquiry on letter Ex.PW5/B. The witnesses admitted that he had no FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 36 knowledge of the present case. No evidence has been led as to how the filing of this objection letter by the accused induced the concerned DDA official and they stopped the mutation proceeding in favour of the complainant as has been alleged as no documentary evidence or any other proof has been led to this effect during the entire trial by the prosecution. Furthermore, in the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove the essential ingredients of Section 420 read with 511 IPC qua the accused Sanjeev Kumar Mitttal beyond reasonable doubt. The accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal is entitled to acquitted for the offence u/s 420 read with 511 IPC.
38. Accordingly, in view of the abovesaid discussion, accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 420 read with 511 IPC and Section 467 IPC. The accused Sanjeev Kumar Mittal is convicted for the offences u/s 468 IPC and Sec. 471 IPC.
Announced in the open Court Today on 07.02.2020 (Gurmohina Kaur) CMM/SE/District Court, Saket New Delhi/07.02.2020 FIR No. 95/04 PS : C.R. Park State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Page no. 37