Delhi District Court
Renu Mittal vs Ani Mittal on 13 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, WEST, THC NEW DELHI
Renu Mittal vs Ani Mittal
C C No.57/1/11
PS Paschim Vihar
13.08.2015
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.By this order the court shall decide on the point of charge.
2. Briefly stated facts as per the complainant are that the accused no.1 is the husband of the complainant while accused no.2 is her Jeth. It has been alleged that the accused persons had forcibly taken the handwriting and signatures of the complainant on some papers before leaving her at her mother's place. On 20.02.2006, the accused no.1 and 2 along with Arti Mittal had put the complainant in fear of death and pressurized her to write their words in her handwriting. When the complainant refused to do so, they all beat her up and did not give her the medicines for epilepsy with an intention to kill the complainant. The complainant did what the accused persons said under duress. It has been further averred that the complainant lodged a complaint in CAW Cell against her husband and in- laws and FIR No.304/07 was registered under Section 498A, 406 & 34 IPC at PS Paschim Vihar. The complainant found that the above mentioned fabricated document was also attached with the charge-sheet file in the said FIR. The complainant has averred that she had never appeared before any notary public nor has she executed any such document. She has submitted that there is no entry number of the register of notary public on the said paper and hence it appears that the stamp and signatures of notary public were false and forged.
3. I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for both the parties. Ld. Counsel for accused persons have submitted that no offence is made out against the accused persons under Section 471/352/506/323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant has submitted that sufficient evidence is already on record against the accused persons to proceed against them.
5. Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of this case. The offence of forgery has been defined under Section 463 IPC. The said section has been produced here verbatim:-
"Section 463 Forgery:- Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
6. Hurt is defined under Section 319 IPC as causing of bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person.
7. The offence of assault has been defined under Section 351 IPC. The necessary ingredients to prove an offence of assault are as follows:-
1. Making of any gesture or preparation by the accused.
2. With the intention or knowledge that such gesture or preparation will cause any person to apprehend use of criminal force upon him by the accused.
Explanation to Section 351 IPC says, "Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault".
8. It is a well settled principle of law that at the stage of framing charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. If on the basis of material on record, the court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence, the court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed with trial. Our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as "Sapna Ahuja vs State" 1999(5) AD Delhi 407 has observed, "At the time of framing of charge FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency cannot be sieved through the calender of the finest gauzes to test its veracity. A roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighting the evidence is not expected or warranted at the stage of framing charge."
9. Also, it has been held by Hon'ble High of Delhi in "Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi)" Crl. Rev. Petition no. 513/2004 as follows, "15. Thus at the time of framing of charge, the court is not supposed to look into the evidence of the case in detail and is only to consider whether there is a strong suspicion against the accused on the basis of the material that comes before it. The court has the power to sift the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out, whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused. However, the court is not supposed to delve deeply into the merits of the matter and start a roving expedition into the evidence that is brought forth it, as if conducting a trial."
10.In view of the above discussion, court is of the considered opinion that on basis of the documents on record, and the evidence led by the complainant, there is enough material on record to proceed against the accused persons. Hence, prima facie offence under Section 471/352/506/323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is made out against both the accused persons.
11.Now to be listed for framing of charge on 21.09.2015.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07 (West) THC, Delhi 13.08.2015