Delhi District Court
Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal vs The State on 14 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH-
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 81/2023
CNR No. DLNW01-001588-2023
Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sardari Lal Aggarwal
R/o 49, Narela Road
Bawana, Delhi-110039
.... Revisionist
Versus
1. The State, GNCT of Delhi
2. Yogesh Mittal
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Mittal
R/o A-1/B-1, 5-C
Bhama Sah Marg
Ishwar Colony, New Delhi
3. Vineet Mittal
S/o Late Sh. Vijay Mittal
R/o D-209, 1st Floor
Ashok Vihar, Phase-1
Delhi-110052
.....Respondents
Date of Filing : 15.02.2023
Date of Arguments : 10.03.2023
Date of Order : 14.03.2023
ORDER
1. The revisionist has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 against an order dated 19.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case State V. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, FIR No. 138/2008, Cr. Case 233/2/2013 PS EOW. Vide the impugned Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 1 of 34 order dt. 19.11.2022, the accused-therein/respondent Nos. 2 & 3-herein were discharged from the said criminal case.
2. The brief facts as set out in the present revision petition is that complainant was one of the director of M/s V.M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged by the complainant that he was not allowed to participate in the day to day working of the company but the same was being controlled by Sh. Vijay Mittal (expired during trial of the case), Yogesh Mittal and Vineet Mittal i.e. respondent Nos. 2 & 3-herein. As per the complaint, the complainant and his wife (through her proprietorship firm) had entered into an agreement to sell with the company for purchase of two flats bearing No. G-3 & G-4 in the project of the company on property bearing No. 5C, Bhama Shah Marg made payment of Rs.30.00 lakhs in total from their bank accounts but later on the said flats were sold by the company at the behest of the accused persons to some other third persons. It was further alleged that one of the accounts of the company operating with Centurian Bank of Punjab (now HDFC Bank), Kamla Nagar, Delhi was opened and operated without the knowledge of the complainant and the documents submitted for opening of the bank account bears his forged signatures. After hearing the arguments on the point of charge, the Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned order discharged both the respondent Nos. 2 & 3-herein.
3. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on the grounds among others that the investigation in the present case is made in haste and out rightly it appears that IO was/is trying to shield the accused/respondent u/s 467 IPC in the chargesheet and filing the Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 2 of 34 same before the concerned Ld. CMM in October 2013 dropping Section 467 IPC. The said FIR was against Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased), Yogesh Mittal (accused/respondent No.2- herein), Vineet Mittal (accused/respondent No.3-herein), Surender, Neeldaman Khatri and Satish Kumar, but to the utter shock, only three accused/respondent namely Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased), Yogesh Mittal and Vineet Mittal (respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein) were chargesheeted in the present case and remaining accused namely Surender, Neeldaman Khatri and Satish Kumar were neither put in column No. 11 nor in column No. 12 by the IO for the reasons best known to him. Similar complaint which was also made by the co-complainant was also made by one Deepa Gupta wife of Sh. Dipesh Gupta wherein she was cheated for one flat bearing No. G-2, at property bearing No. 5-C, for the consideration amount of Rs. 74.00 lacs and till September 2006 she made a payment of Rs. 70.00 lacs but the said property was sealed by the MCD as only 8 flats in 5C and 4 flats in 5D were permissible to be made as per the permission given by the MCD, lateron the said cocomplainant Deepa Gupta came to know that her flat has been resold to some other person in the same manner as the flat of complainant/ Revisionist Naresh Aggarwal was sold by the accused/ respondents. At the time of the first bail application, under Section 437 Cr.P.C. the accused/ respondent person took the plea that there is no document to support as to how and from where Rs. One crore was invested by the complainant/ revisionist in the said M/s V.M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Prior to the bail application, the complaint of said Deepa Gupta was also received by the EOW regarding the offence of similar nature. However, the said bail application was dismissed vide Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 3 of 34 order dated 28.01.2011. Even, the Bank opening form / documents which was seized by the IO from Centurion Bank of Punjab and as well as admitted specimen signature of the Complainant/ Revisionist was sent to FSL for comparison and as per the FSL result, the handwriting expert gave his opinion dated 25.10.2010 and had confirmed that the signatures of Naresh Kumar Aggarwal/complainant/ revisionist on the opening of Bank account of Centurion Bank of Punjab (now HDFC Bank, Kamla Nagar) have been forged and fabricated by the accused/ respondent namely, Yogesh Mittal and Vineet Mittal and the signature of the accused/ respondent Vineet Mittal, director of the aforesaid company, were found to be genuine on the agreement to sell signed by the accused/ respondent Vineet Mittal with the complainant/ revisionist, thus, this shows that from the beginning the accused/ respondents along with the other accused/ respondents and Vineet Mittal back stabbed the complainant/revisionist and were manipulating his signatures for their personal use.
4. The revisionist has further taken the grounds that the accused/ respondent, namely, Vijay Mittal, Vineet Mittal, Yogesh Mittal where the said order contains the pleas of the accused/ respondent that the matter was settled between the complainant/ revisionist and the accused/ respondent by two receipts dated 23.02.2007 which shows that approximately Rs.1,30,00,000/- were received by the complainant/ revisionist from M/s Mahashakti Builders Pvt. Ltd. Even it is assumed that the story of the accused/ respondent is trustworthy then also it is hardly digestible as to why the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) never took a plea in the bail moved before the concerned ACMM stating about the factum of Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 4 of 34 the matter being compromised. It is pertinent to mention herein that two receipts wherein it has been shown that the complainant/ revisionist has received Rs.1,30,00,000/- approximately from M/s Mahashakti Builders Pvt. Ltd. are dated 23.02.2007 whereas the said order of dismissal of bail application u/s 437 Cr.P.C. is of 28.01.2011. Neither the accused/ respondent explained as to why they remained silent for four years, having the utmost favouring documents in their favour and against the complainant/ revisionist. The FIR being registered in 2008 was kept on pending arrest of the accused/ respondent till 2011 and if it is assumed that the accused/ respondent joined the preliminary enquiry before the IO then also they must have shown these receipts to the IO. Had it been so, this fact would have been mentioned by the IO in his status report filed at the time of bail application u/s 437 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. ACMM, but, the said fact is not even whispered by the IO in his status report dated 21.01.2011. First time the plea of the receipt were taken before the Hon'ble Court of Sessions Judge at the time when the Bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. was moved and there and then the bail application was dismissed on the ground of offence being grievous in nature. Thereof it was argued by the counsel of the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) that no alleged cash of Rs.1.00 Crore was paid by the complainant/ revisionist to the accused/ respondent or to the company in question. However, they have also taken contrary view that there is no agreement executed in favour of the wife of the complainant/ revisionist regarding the two flats. In the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal, (since deceased) has relied upon the payment receipt which are already Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 5 of 34 annexed as Annexure-B, wherein two receipts were shown and in one receipt, the signature were of Dalbir Mann and Girish Mittal along with the complainant/ revisionist and the same receipt which was produced before the court were containing six signatures including of complainant/ revisionist which suggest that there was forging and fabrication of these receipts by the accused/ respondent. Various order sheets at the time of hearing of bail application show that judges declined to hear the matter due to personal reason and even Sh. Rajneesh Bhatnagar, the then Ld. ASJ, who was hearing the Bail application gave the direction to the IO to verify the receipt and to see the source of income of the complainant/ revisionist for his invested money and also to verify the factum of payment of an amount of approximately Rs.1.30 crore.
5. The revisionist has also taken the grounds that the IO verified the factum of source of investment of the complainant/revisionist, but did not verify as to why the third company by the name of M/s Mahashakti Builder Pvt. Ltd. will make a payment of Rs.1.30 crore to the complainant/ revisionist when such company is neither the sister concern nor the company in which the complainant/revisionist has invested. It is hard to digest as to why the said receipts do not bear the signatures of the Directors of the Company M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. The reason such receipts does not bear the signatures of the Directors as these receipts were false and fabricated by the company as well as the accused/ respondent. At the time when such receipts were fabricated, the accused/ respondent Yogesh Mittal used the blank papers signed by the complainant/revisionist for the day to day affairs of the company. The reason of such receipts not bearing the signatures Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 6 of 34 of Director, as they were running from arrest and another director Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) was already behind the bars and this is the reason that the such receipts were neither on the letterhead of M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. nor on letterhead of M/s Mahashakti Builders Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, the other five persons, namely Yogesh Mittal, Subhash Bansal, Girish Mittal, Kaushal Kaushik and Dalbir Mann, as per the accused/ respondent are neither the director nor the beneficiary then the accused/ respondent are unable to satisfy as to in what capacity they have signed and under whose instructions they have signed. The revisionist has further stated that from the above analysis, it is clear that the receipts were false and fabricated by using the Blank papers signed by the complainant/ revisionist; The receipts do not bear the stamp of M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. or M/s Mahashakti Builders Pvt. Ltd. or is not made on their letterhead as it has been manufactured lateron by the accused/ respondent namely Yogesh Mittal, Subhash Bansal, Girish Mittal, Kaushal Kaushik and Dalbir Mann for their convenience; Had the receipt been of 2007, then the accused/ respondent would have not taken the contrary view that the complainant/ revisionist has never invested in their company or he has not made payment of Rs.30.00 lacs by way of cheque for 2 flats; The receipts are contrary to the stand taken by the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal, (since deceased) in his bail application u/s 437 Cr.P.C. as well as first bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. that no money was ever invested by the complainant/revisionist in the company of accused/ respondent M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd.; Initially the receipts were containing the signatures of Dalbir Mann and Girish Mittal. On giving the notice u/s 160 Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 7 of 34 Cr.P.C., Dalbir Mann never appeared before the IO to join the investigation which clearly shows that he has something to hide upon. Even the IO has not submitted the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. along with the charge-sheet to know the actual status of the witnesses and there explanation regarding the said forged receipts.
6. Revisionist has further stated that vide order dated 24.02.2011 Sh. Rajnish Bhatnagar the then Ld. ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi had directed the IO to investigate the source of repayment by the accused/ respondent and source of investment by the complainant/ revisionist by collecting relevant documents/Income Tax Return/ balance sheets etc. and also directed the Advocate Kaushal Kaushik, (who was appearing as an advocate for accused/ respondent Vijay Mittal as well as witness in the said receipts), and complainant/ revisionist to join the investigation as it was pleaded by Mr. Kaushal Kaushik that the Complainant/ Revisionist received Rs.1.30 Crore in front of him. Had it been so, then the signature of Mr. Kaushal Kaushik would have been there on the first receipts, which were produced before the Court in which there were signatures of Dalbir Mann and Girish Kumar Mittal only. However, Dalbir Maan (one of the alleged witnesses of the said receipts) did not join the investigation and all the other four witnesses, namely, Yogesh Mittal, Subhash Bansal, Kaushal Kaushik and Girish Mittal accused/ respondent in perjury, admitted that the complainant/ revisionist has invested Rupees Ninety-Six Lacs regarding construction of 28 flats on the property bearing No. 5C, Bhamashah Marg, New Delhi. Though the IO made investigation from the complainant/revisionist about his source of income, source of investment etc. but never investigated into Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 8 of 34 the key point i.e. the source of repayment by the accused/ respondent as alleged by the accused/ respondent under the aforesaid purported receipts as well as into the role of M/s Mahashakti Builders Pvt. Ltd. nor collected any evidence as per the directions of Sh. Rajnish Bhatnagar the then Ld. ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi. It is hard to digest as to why the IO has not verified the role of M/s Mahashakti Builders Pvt. Ltd. and in what capacity the said company made a payment to the complainant/revisionist when it has nothing to do with M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. The IO /accused/ respondent failed to explain as to why the said receipts were in dumb box till the arrest of the accused/respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) and was never used by them. At least at the time of preliminary enquiry they must have shown these receipts to the IO. On the aspect of these receipts, the status report by the IO at the time of bail is silent. It is strange that the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal, (since deceased) used the said receipts for the first time, at the time of his second bail. The accused/ respondent Yogesh Mittal was one of the directors and he signed an agreement with Dalbir Mann, which suggest that he was procuring money for the company as a Director. Though the said receipt bears the signature of the complainant/ revisionist (taken on blank papers), but the date written under his signature are not in his handwriting. The receipt suggest that all the dates are in handwriting of one person. The accused/ respondent namely Yogesh Mittal, Subhash Bansal, Girish Mittal, Kaushal Kaushik and Dalbir Mann as well as the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) failed to explain as to why one receipt made on 12.02.2007 bears the signatures as well as date of 23.02.2007 (why it was signed after Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 9 of 34 11 days) and another receipt prepared on 22.02.2007 bears the signature as well as date of 23.02.2007, i.e. one day after the preparation.
7. The revisionist has also stated that moreover at the time of making of alleged receipts i.e. 23.02.2007, the complainant / revisionist was not having strained relationship with the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (Since Deceased) and other accused/ respondent then why, said receipts do not bear the signature of the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) and the accused/ respondent Vineet Mittal is most valuable question. For the first time the complaint was made on 16.11.2007 by the Complainant/ Revisionist. It is not clear as to who has signed on behalf of the M/s Mahashakti Builders Pvt. Ltd. or who was the authorized signatory on their behalf for making the alleged payment and for what reasons the said payment was made. These facts and circumstances suggest that the receipts are forged and fabricated by using the blank papers signed by the complainant/revisionist. Nonetheless to say that the bail was granted to the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) on the said ground. Opening of account in Centurion Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, by forging the signatures of the revisionist has made wrongful loss to the complainant / revisionist and wrongful gain to the respondent as the complainant was partner of 20% in the said deal. The respondents Nos. 2 & 3 have forged the documents as it give authority to the Bank to transfer and make principal interest or to deliver any money and movable property, which was used by the respondent Nos. 2&3, the same also attracts U/S 468/471 IPC, as the said document has been used for the purpose of cheating.
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 10 of 34
8. The revisionist has also taken the grounds that since the bail has been granted by producing the false and fabricated documents which shows that it attracts the penal punishment against the accused/ respondent as well as the person who signed as witness for misleading the court and obtaining the bail. The said signatures along with the specimen signatures of the accused/ respondent and complainant/ revisionist were taken and were sent to the FSL for matching. The said FSL record is already on record which suggests that even the signatures of the complainant/revisionist, Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, were manipulated by the accused/ respondent and accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal, (since deceased). There has been transactions of worth crores in the said current account as it was used by the accused/ respondent including the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) for selling of the flats which were made by the complainant/ revisionist with his hard earned money. It is also hard to digest as to on what ground the IO differentiated the roles of the accused/ respondent and put the accused/respondent no. 2 and 3 in the charge sheet (without arrest), whereas the third accused/ respondent was arrested. Nonetheless to say that the role of the accused/ respondent, Yogesh Mittal, is far much grievous as he indulged in making false and fabricated acknowledgement receipt of payment and produced the same before the Court, on the basis of which co-accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) was granted bail by Shri S.K. Jain, Ld. ASJ, Rohini Courts. The role of the accused/ respondents is also same and equal as he also indulged in manufacturing of false opening Bank account form by using the false signature of the complainant/revisionist who at that time was one of the Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 11 of 34 Directors of the Company. From the day one, the accused/ respondents were in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) as it appears that when even the relationship of the complainant/revisionist were healthy with the accused / respondents including the accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased), then what was the need to fabricate the signs of the complainant/ revisionist on the Bank Opening account as well as on the acknowledgment receipt. This clearly shows that Yogesh Mittal, accused/ respondent who is accused/ respondent in another case pending in the court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Special Judge, CBI, Delhi is a habitual cheater and he is in a desperate need attempt to cheat innocent people. The IO failed to explain as to what were the grounds / need to put the accused/ respondent in the charge sheet without arrest, when their role is far much bigger than the role of accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased). Why the IO did not assign any reason of dropping Section 467 IPC from the charge-sheet when he himself admits on the second last page of its final report that ".....there is sufficient evidence against the accused/ respondent person to proceed under Section 420/406/468/471/120-B IPC.
9. The revisionist further stated that without obtaining the legal opinion, why the case diary of the present case FIR which was registered in the year 2008 was kept on pending by the IO till 2011 and even if it is assumed that co-accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) have compromised the matter by repaying the amount in the form of acknowledgement receipt Annexure-B, then why the co-accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) and accused/ respondent did not apply for anticipatory bail before the concerned court. Non-
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 12 of 34 applying for anticipatory bail by either of the accused/ respondent clearly shadows the doubt over the acknowledgment receipts already annexed and fair investigation conducted by the IO. Even it is assumed that the accused/ respondent as well as the co-accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) were in possession of the acknowledgement receipts since 2007, then also, it is hard to digest as to why neither the accused/ respondent nor the co-accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) applied for anticipatory bail. IO even failed to reply or satisfy as to why from 2008 up till 2011, he did not give notice to any of the accused/ respondent/co-accused/ respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) to join the investigation. One Innova Car bearing No. DL-7CG-0187 was in the name of the complainant/ revisionist and the accused/ respondent Neel Daman Khatri, Surender and Satish snatched the said Car by threatening the complainant /revisionist. The IO did not investigate the matter properly and sincerely and gave the finding in the charge-sheet that the tyres, battery and insurance of the said Car was got renewed by the said three accused/ respondent Neel Daman Khatri, Surender and Satish. The said Car was got released by the complainant/ revisionist on superdari from one of the court of Rajasthan, where the said car was met with an accident on 20.07.2006 and the said Car was got released in the case FIR No. 319/06 PS Amer (Jaipur). It is alleged in the charge-sheet by IO that the said vehicle was snatched in April 2006 and no complaint of any nature was made by the complainant/ revisionist till 2007. The law of stealing and robbery is very much clear under Section 379 IPC and Section 392/394 IPC. Mere the possession of the documents or an article does not give the ownership right to the possession Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 13 of 34 holder. Had it been so, then all the tenants would have been considered as owners of the tenanted premises as they also pay the taxes as well as other expenditures upon the property. The mere mentioning of the fact by the IO that the bills of the tyres as well as the insurance and other bills of the Car being paid by Neel Daman, Surender and Satish, clearly indicated that these persons themselves admit to be in possession of the said vehicle and they themselves admitted that they are not owner of the said vehicle. Mere payment of the insurance amount, changing of tyres and battery does not entitle any person to become the owner of the said Car. The said Car is still in the name of the complainant/ revisionist and even it is presumed that he gave the said Car to Neel Daman, Surender and Satish, then it is failed to understand as to why the said Car sale purchase documents were not signed by the complainant/ revisionist and Neel Daman Khatri, Surender and Satish. It clearly indicates that the said Car is in forceful illegal possession of the accused/ respondent who are not even been in Column No. 12 of the Charge-sheet. The revisionist has prayed to set aside / modify the impugned order and framing the charges u/s 406/420/469/471/506/120-B IPC dated 19.11.2022.
10. The respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the revision petition and raised the preliminary objections that the instant petition is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheetala Prasad V. Sri Kant (2010) 2SCC 190, a two Judge Bench held that a private complainant can file a revision petition in certain circumstances, including when the trial court wrongly shuts out evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce. The object of the provisions of revision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 14 of 34 or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The revisional jurisdiction of the court u/s 397 of the CrPC is very limited one. In the reply, the respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (para 20) and stated that revisional jurisdiction to be exercised on question of law: Relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (Supra) (para 18), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case noted below, has ruled thus:
"Normally, revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases."
The respondent No.2 also placed reliance in the cases of Chandra Babu Vs. State, (2015) 8 SCC 774; Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 (para 18); Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (para 18). The revisionist has further stated that Sections 397 to 403 CrPC do not confer a Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 15 of 34 right on a litigant to file revision but the revisional power is only discretionary with the court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized principles of criminal jurisprudence. In this regard, the respondent No.2 has referred the judgments in the cases of (i) Malti vs. State of U.P, 2000 CrLJ 4170 (All) and (ii) Iqram vs. State of U.P. 1988(2) Crimes 414(All.). The Revisional Court can interfere with the findings of fact of the lower court only when the same is perverse and not merely when another view is also possible and in this regard reliance has been placed in the case of Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Others, (2015) 3 SCC 123.
11. The respondent No.2 also stated that in the present case by way of revision petition, the complainant is seeking to alter the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate even when the said findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate are neither perverse nor erroneous but based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. As such, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the revisional powers could not have interfered with the findings of facts recorded by the lower court only because the High Court could have arrived at a different or another conclusion. In this regard, the respondent No. 2 has also placed reliance upon the cases of State of T.N. Vs. Mariya Anton Vijay, (2015) 9 SCC 294 (paras 65 & 66) and Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705. The fact recorded by the Ld. Trial Court cannot be held to be perverse if it has been arrived at by taking into account the relevant material and by taking into consideration relevant and admissible material. The respondent No.2 while placing reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 16 of 34 Anwar Ali Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 (Three-Judge Bench) and Babu Vs State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189, stated that finding cannot be said to be perverse since it weighed evidence and the finding were logical and rational.
12. In reply, the respondent No. 2 has also raised preliminary submissions that the FIR No. 138/08 PS EOW U/s 406/420/468/471/506/120B IPC was registered on 19.08.2008 on the complaint of Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal dated 16.11.2007 and after the complaint of Smt. Deepa Gupta dt.18.08.2008 for the aforementioned offences against Vijay Mittal, Vineet Mittal and Yogesh Mittal/respondent. In preliminary submissions, the respondent No.2 has also given the details of the allegations made by the revisionist in his complaint dated 16.11.2007. In reply on merits, the respondents No.2 has stated that the IO, in the charge-sheet after conducting thorough investigation has stated that it was clear that complainant was involved in day to day affairs of the company and knew all the facts. He had not approached the investigating agency with clean hands. During investigation most of the allegation levelled by the complainant have been found to be incorrect/ false. The revisionist/ complainant himself is a Director in the company which as per him has cheated him. The revisionist has invested the money in the company out of his own free will to earn profit. When the said business proposal and venture failed, the complainant twisted the facts and contrary to evidence on record to make out a case against the respondent No. 2 in order to extort money from him. The complainant had before the completion of the project demanded and received back his investment even before registration of sale deeds commenced as per the records. The complainant signed Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 17 of 34 various Agreements to Sell on behalf of the Company M/s V.M. Build Solutions Pvt. including Agreement to Sale with the respondent/ accused/ Yogesh Mittal dated 02.03.2006 and with M/s Nitish Associates - Proprietor Mrs. Anu Aggarwal, who is the wife of the complainant for Flat No. G-4, consideration being Rs.20,00,000/- together with a number of other Sale Agreements of Flats, on behalf of the company in 2006. During Investigation as per the IO itself, Flats G3 and G4 were sold to third party through sale deed executed by Vineet Mittal authorised vide Resolution dated 10.07.2006 passed in the meeting of the company bearing signatures of the complainant. It was also revealed that part payment of Rs.30.00 lacs was transferred from the bank account of Sh. Naresh Aggarwal and his wife Smt. Anu Aggarwal to the bank account of M/s V.M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. maintained with Citi Bank. The complainant himself was one of the authorised signatories of this bank account. The complainant also alleged that he gave Rs.30 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Lacs Only) for purchase of two flats G2 and G3 to M/s V.M. Built Solution. Admittedly an agreement to sale which was between M/s V.M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and in the name of firm owned by Anu Aggarwal (Wife of complainant) was signed by the complainant himself. The amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Only) was deposited in the Court through an FDR as a condition of the bail order which was passed for the release of Vijay Kumar Mittal. In all 8 flats were sold to relatives or friends of complainant, two flats each were sold to his brother Santosh and Vinod Aggarwal, one Flat was sold to Girish Mittal who is complainant's sister in LawsSon in Law, One Flat was sold to Sh. Sushil Jain at a profit of 20.00 Lacs from the original price Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 18 of 34 of the company. Thus, he was not allotted any flat as desired by him is beyond compensation.
13. The respondent No.2 has further stated that the investigation had revealed on 10.07.2006, Resolution in the company M/s V. M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was passed which was signed by the complainant Naresh Aggarwal and Vijay Mittal authorizing Vineet Mittal Director as an authorized signatory on the Sale Deeds in favour of the persons those who had entered into Agreement to Purchase the flats The land where the Flats were built, was purchased by M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. The complainant being the Director himself, performed Bhoomi Poojan. The allegations of the complainant that he was not allowed to take part in the day to day affairs of the company was found baseless, wrong and false in the investigation. During investigation, it was revealed that (i) Seven Original Agreement to Sell including the one with Yogesh Mittal was verified to be signed by the complainant himself vide FSL Report No. FSL-2011/ D-0624 dated 22.02.2011 and thus it was revealed during investigation that the allegation that he was not managing the affairs of the company though was a director and complainant's submission to oppose bail application of accused Vijay Mittal that these signatures on the said agreements are not his, has been found to be false. The same have been found to be his genuine signatures as per FSL Report. Not only this, complainant Naresh Kumar Aggarwal has signed and entered into an Agreement for Sale for : with Kusum Jain W/o Lalit Jain on17.01.2006; with Iqbal Singh S/o Sardar Bhagat Singh 15.05.2006; with Garib Ram on 15.06.2006; with his own brother Vinod Aggarwal on 31.03.2006; with Kuldeep Singh S/o Sardar Bhagat Singh; with M/s Nitish Associates-
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 19 of 34 Proprietor of this firm was Mrs. Anu Aggarwal, wife of complainant on 24.03.2006. The Documents under signatures of the complainant and Vineet Mittal being directors of the Company were filed in RoC, Income Tax Department, statements including director's report Balance Sheet, Trading and P&L Account for the year ending 31.03.2006 of the company M/s V.M Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd . The respondent No. 2 has further stated that complainant has already received back his invested amount vide receipts dated 23.02.2007 with M/s V. M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Maha Shakti Builders Pvt. Ltd. at 5-D, Bhama Shah Marg. Both receipts are duly signed by the complainant as verified by the FSL Report. The same has been signed by 5 witnesses who have confirmed repayment. Thus, it was concluded in the investigation that the invested amount was refunded to complainant in the charge-sheet. The allegations of the complainant as regards snatching of his vehicle Innova Car bearing No. DL-7CG-0817 by Suresh, Satinder and Neel Daman Khatri could not be proved as per the charge-sheet and was found to be false.
14. The respondent No. 2 also stated that the investigation revealed that the complainant himself has sold the said vehicle to Satish, Surender and Neeldaman Khatri on 10.04.2006 at together with handing over of insurance papers including original Purchase Bill and three keys It has also come on record that on 03.07.2007, the above said vehicle met with an accident at Ajmer with a Bicycle and FIR No.319/06, dated 20.07.2006 was registered under Section 379/337 IPC and it was the complainant who went there to get the vehicle on Superdari along with these three persons. The driver of these three persons was also examined who disclosed that he is driving the said Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 20 of 34 vehicle since 10.04.2006. From the date of purchase, Satish Garg, Suresh Garg and Neeldaman Khatri also renewed the Insurance Policy of the vehicle, they also got changed the tyres and got the vehicle serviced. The receipts of these things were also kept on record and same were shown and handed over to the IO, during the investigation The complainant himself alleged in his complaint about the snatching of vehicle in April, 2006 whereas he filed a complaint in this regard on 17.11.2007. It has been revealed from the statement of Surender, Neeldaman and Satish Kumar that they knew complainant for last many years and he had persuaded them to buy flats and invest. During that period, he had desired to sell his vehicle and they agreed to purchase the same for Rs.6.09 lacs and was handed over to them on 10.04.2006 but the sale documents could not be signed as they had good relations with complainant and there was load from the bank against vehicle. Documents along with 3 original keys of the vehicle was handed over to them by complainant Insurance Agent confirmed the stand of the said three persons and stated that insurance was being done in name of Satish Kumar. It is also stated in the charge-sheet that during investigation, complainant has failed to inform why no PCR Call/complaint was lodged by him immediately after the alleged incident of snatching in April 2006 and the first complaint was filed by him with the police in the month of September/November 2007. Complainant did not give satisfactory reply as regards possession with said persons, proven through documentary as well as oral evidences.
15. As regards the complaint of Deepa Gupta, the respondent No.2 has stated that she has not challenged the order of discharge dated 19.11.2022. During the pendency of bail Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 21 of 34 application of Vijay Mittal, a compromise deed had been executed between Deepa Gupta and M/s V. M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. whereby full amount was received by Deepa Gupta on 27.01.2011 and to that affect a Receipt of Rs.70.00 Lac was executed by Deepa Gupta. Mrs, Deepa Gupta entered into an Agreement to Purchase for the Flat No. G-2/5-C, Bhama Shah Marg, Delhi, with M/s V. M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through Sh. Vijay Mittal, which was subsequently sealed and as a consequence Mrs. Deepa Gupta refused to take the flat and requested for return of her investment payment. It was agreed by M/s V. M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. that Rs.70.00 Lacs of Deepa Gupta would be returned on receiving the original Receipts and original Agreement but due to some misunderstanding, the instant case was registered. In the present revision petition, the respondent No. 2 further stated that there is neither documentary nor oral evidence to link respondent/ accused Yogesh Mittal M/s V. M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as he is neither a Director nor an investor or in any manner connected with the company in any capacity or control or administration of the Company. Instead respondent No. 2 Yogesh Mittal was allured to buy Flat No. A-1 and B-1, constructed on the plot No. 5C, Bhama Shah Marg, Delhi, (without furnishing as per terms of Agreement by complainant) in the project of the company of complainant as the complainant is the son of Real Bua of the respondent-herein. The same is a matter of record and a fact which is undisputed. The respondent only seeing the family relations acted as a witness to the settlement of complainant with the company of co-accused to get the money invested by the complainant recovered The complainant has alleged that the fund of the company were siphoned in the company owned by the petitioner Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 22 of 34 Yogesh Mittal, whereas the balance sheet of the company M/s V. M Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which was filed on 31.03.2006 duly signed by the complainant has shown that M/s V. M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was to pay Rs. 85.50 Lacs to the firm of the respondent/ Yogesh Mittal. The complainant gave a Photostat Stamp Paper of Rs. 50/- wherein it is alleged that Yogesh Mittal signed as Director of M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. to take loan of Rs. 1.5 Crores from one Mr. Dalbir Singh Mann for six months with the condition that the amount will be returned as lump sum of Rs.2 Crore Four Lakhs on or before May 2007. The Stamp is also visible and the signatures are forged having the date 01.5.2006 whereas the stamp paper was purchased on 07.02.2007 from the Stamp vendor as it is mentioned on the back side of Stamp paper. This document was fabricated by the complainant Naresh Aggarwal himself to create false evidence to ostensibly connect Yogesh Mittal with the company M/s V.M Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. In case if any document would have been executed, as alleged it must be in the month of November 2006 and Stamp Paper must have been purchased on or before November 2006. It could not be after three months of taking the loan in February, 2007. Except for this document, there is nothing on record to connect Yogesh Mittal with M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Dalbir Singh Maan is neither a witness nor was examined under Section 161 Cr. P.C. during the inquiry/ investigation.
16. The respondent No.2 with regard to the allegations stated that criminal breach of trust is not made out against respondent for he as per the prosecution itself has not received any money from the complainant, rather has dues to be paid by the complainant. Even the accused is not holder of the bank account Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 23 of 34 from which he allegedly paid the money to the company for buying said flats. Respondent has only facilitated the return of investment in the company by the complainant which has been proved to be returned, by acting as a witness on his behalf. Cheating is not made out against respondent for he was not controlling the affairs of the company, but it has been concluded that the complainant has not approached the investigating agency with clean hands for he himself was managing the affairs of the company and its bank account and selling the flats. Forgery of the signatures of complainant on account of the company, opening documents of Centurion Bank, accused Vijay and Vineet Mittal were the beneficiary as authorised signatory of the account has been concluded by the investigating agency. It is also a settled law that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. Making of a document is different than causing it to be made. Explanation 2 to Section 464 of IPC further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery. In this regard, the respondent No.2 has placed reliance in the case of Sheila Sebastian V. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581. Thus, conspiracy and using the said documents thereon cannot be imputed on the respondent. The respondent has no nexus with other co-accused or the company of complainant and accused together. Therefore, the respondent is not part of any conspiracy. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Cr1.) No. 10460/2019) Mohan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent No. 2 himself had been facing death Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 24 of 34 threats and extortion calls at the hands of the complainant and has also filed complaint in that regard to PS Subzi Mandi vide DD No. 33A on 9th June, 2007, before Police Commissioner vide Diary No. 11549 on 14.09.2007. As a result, the complainant was summoned by the Anti Extortion Cell, Crime Branch, RK Puram for 20.09.2007 but due to his nexus with higher officials, no action was taken in that regard against him.
17. The respondent No.3 has also filed reply to the revision petition and raised the preliminary objections that for a criminal prosecution, it is to be shown right at the beginning of the transaction that fraudulent or dishonest intention is there at the beginning of the transaction. The respondent No.3 also raised preliminary submissions that the FIR No. 138/2008 PS EOW u/s 406/420/468/471/506/120B IPC was registered on 19.08.2008 on the complaint of Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal dt. 16.11.2007 and after the complaint of Smt. Deepa Gupta dt. 18.08.2008 for the aforementioned offences against Yogesh Mittal, Vijay Mittal and Vineet Mittal. In the reply, the respondent No.3 also mentioned the allegations made by the revisionist in his complaint dt. 16.11.2007. In reply on merits, the respondent No.3 has stated that during investigation most of the allegations levelled by the complainant have been found to be incorrect/false. The revisionist/complainant himself is Director in the company which as per him has cheated him. When the said business proposal and venture failed, the complainant twisted facts and contrary to evidence on record to make out a case against the respondents in order to extort money from them. Complainant signed various agreements to sell on behalf of the company M/s V.M. Build Solutions Pvt. including Agreement to Sale with the respondent / accused/Yogesh Mittal Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 25 of 34 dt.02.03.2006 and with M/s Nitish Associates-Proprietor Mrs. Anu Aggarwal, who is the wife of the complainant for Flat No. G-4, consideration being Rs.20,00,000/- together with a number of other Agreements of Flats, on behalf of company in 2006. As per IO, G3 & G4 were sold to third party through sale deed executed by Vineet Mittal authorised vide resolution dt. 10.07.2006 passed in meeting of the company, bearing signatures of the complainant and the complainant himself was one of the authorized signatories of this bank account. Many flats were sold to relatives or friends of complainant, the details of which has been mentioned in the reply. During investigation, it was revealed that seven original Agreement to Sell including the one with Yogesh Mittal was verified to be signed by the complainant himself vide FSL Report No. FSL-2011/ D-0624 dated 22.02.2011 and thus it was revealed during investigation that the allegation that he was not managing the affairs of the Company though was a director and complainant's submission to oppose bail application of accused Vijay Mittal that these signatures on the said agreements are not his, has been found to be false. The same have been found to be his genuine signatures as per FSL Report. In his reply, the respondent No. 3 has also given details of the agreement for sale signed and entered by the complainant Naresh Kumar Aggarwal. The complainant has already received back his invested amount vide receipts dt. 23.02.2007 with M/s V.M. Build Solutions Pvt. Ltd and M/s Maha Shakti Builders Pvt. Ltd at 5-D, Bhama Shah Marg. Both receipts are duly signed by the complainant as verified by the FSL report. The same has been signed by 5 witnesses who have confirmed repayment. The allegations of complainant regarding snatching of his Innova Car No. DL-7CG-0187 could not be Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 26 of 34 proved. The investigation also reveals that complainant himself sold the vehicle to Satish, Surender and Neeldaman Khatri on 10.04.2006 together with handing over of insurance papers including original purchase bill and three keys. On 03.07.2007, the said vehicle met with an accident at Ajmer with a bicycle and complainant went there to get the said vehicle on superdari. The complainant himself alleged in his complaint about the snatching of vehicle in April 2006 whereas he filed a complaint in this regard on 17.11.2007. It is revealed from the statement of Surender, Neeldaman and Satish Kumar that they knew complainant for last many years and he had persuaded them to buy flats and invest. During that period, he had desired to sell his vehicle and they agreed to purchase the same for Rs.6.09 lacs and was handed over to them on 10.04.2006 but the sale documents could not be signed as they had good relations with complainant and there was load from the bank against vehicle. Documents along with 3 original keys of the vehicle was handed over to them by complainant. Insurance Agent confirmed the stand of the said three persons and stated that insurance was being done in the name of Satish Kumar. During investigation, complainant has failed to inform why no PCR Call/complaint was lodged by him immediately after the alleged incident of snatching in April 2006 and the first complaint was filed by him with the police in the month of September/November 2007. Complainant did not give satisfactory reply as regards possession with said persons, proven through documentary as well as oral evidences. The respondent No. 3 has also stated that allegations of criminal breach of trust is not made out against the respondent for he as per the prosecution itself has not received any money from the complainant. Cheating, forgery Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 27 of 34 and conspiracy are also not made out against the respondent No.3 because the complainant himself was managing the affairs of the company and its bank account and selling the flats.
18. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Counsel for the respondents and I have also perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the revisionist and respondent No.2, the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 and also the impugned order dt.19.11.2022 as well as materials on record.
19. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued that false signature of revisionist were used in opening the account with the bank. As far as accused Yogesh Mittal is concerned, he is also a Director in the company, which is clear from stamp paper, copy of which is placed at page No. 76 of this file. The first bail application of co-accused Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) was moved in 2011 against whom the FIR was registered in the year 2008 vide FIR No. 138/2008. There is no signature of Vineet Mittal in receipt whereby the revisionist-herein invested Rs.96,00,000/- in the company, the copy of the said receipt is placed at page No. 55 of this case file. The revisionist had invested in the company vide documents placed at page No. 55 to 58 of this case file. The signatures on the said receipts show that the receipts are not genuine. The complainant / revisionist agreed to purchase two flats for the value of Rs.20.00 lakhs each and paid Rs.30.00 lakhs but the said two flats were sold to the third parties. Yogesh Mittal purported to be the director of the company. The chargesheet also mentions that the flats bearing No. G-3 & G-4 were not transferred in favour of complainant and his wife but accused Vineet Mittal executed sale deed in Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 28 of 34 respect of these flats in favour of third parties. IO did not keep in column No. 12 the accused qua the Innova vehicle. None of the directors refunded the money. If not paid this money then why the receipts were issued. No letterhead is there. It is denied that Naresh Kumar did not sign the documents. Accused Vijay Mittal (since expired), father of respondent No.2-herein hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the revisionist. Despite the receipt of part payment and execution of agreement for sale of the flats with the revisionist, the accused persons did not fulfill their promise and they never delivered the possession of the flats nor returned the invested amount. The FSL report also shows that forged and fabricated signatures of the complainant were used in opening the bank account by the accused persons to cheat the complainant. At the time of framing of charge, only prima facie case is required to be established.
20. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that respondent No. 2 was never director of the company. No signature of him is there. He has not made any transaction. During hearing arguments on the bail application of accused Vijay Mittal, his counsel produced two original receipts dt. 23.02.2007 whereby complainant has received back his invested money of Rs.96.00 lacs. These receipts bears five witnesses. The complainant's allegation that his signatures were taken on blank papers is not genuine as handwriting expert confirmed the signature of the complainant. Further, the complainant has not produced any independent evidence in support of his such defence. Claim is against the company and not against the individual person. The complainant has received Rs.96,00,000/-, which is clear from the receipt placed at page No. 55 of this file. In original documents, signatures are there. The Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 29 of 34 receipt/document purported to be in the name of Yogesh Mittal is unsigned document. No signature on it. As regard the allegation of snatching of Innova car is concerned, the same was not snatched and even no complaint of snatching was also made by the complainant. As per investigation, revisionist gave it by his own wish. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment in the case of Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh Chander & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1516 of 2010) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 13.09.2012 and Sheila Sebastian Versus R. Jawaharaj & Anr. Etc., in Criminal Appeal Nos. 359-360 of 2010 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 11.05.2018.
21. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.3 argued that co- accused Vijay Mittal has expired. Revisionist has the habit of making different signatures. How the revisionist gave money has not been explained. Nothing has been proved against respondent No.2. The present revision is a kind of protest petition. The complainant himself used his different signature in different documents pertaining to Govt. Department. After the settlement between complainant and other directors of the company, the sale deed were executed and the complainant received Rs.96.00 lacs in cash and he surrendered his rights in the said flats. The receipts by which the complainant received Rs.96.00 lakhs are bearing the signature of five witnesses. The directors also passed the resolution to empower the accused Vinit Mittal to execute the sale deed and it bears the signatures of all the directors including the complainant. There is no intention of the accused Vinit Mittal to cheat the complainant. FSL result no where mentions that accused Vineet Mittal had Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 30 of 34 forged the signatures for opening the account.
22. Perusal of record reveals that the main allegations in this revision petition is that complainant was not allowed to take part in the day to day affairs / working of the company but the same was being controlled by respondent Nos. 2 & 3-herein including Sh. Vijay Mittal who had already expired during the pendency of the case. The complainant, being Director of the company, made himself a party in the agreement to sale of the property i.e. two flats bearing No. G-3 & G-4 in the project of the company on property bearing no. 5C, Bhama Shah Marg and made payment of Rs.30.00 lakhs in total from their bank accounts. The said agreement was between company through complainant with the firm owned by his wife namely Anu Aggarwal. The said agreement was signed by the complainant himself. The complainant also alleged that one of the accounts of the company operating with Centurian Bank of Punjab (now HDFC Bank), Kamla Nagar, Delhi was opened and operated without his knowledge and for opening of the bank account, his signatures were forged on the documents submitted with the bank. The similar complaint was also made by one Ms. Deepa Gupta w/o Sh. Dipesh Gupta wherein she was cheated for one flat bearing G-2, at property bearing No. 5-C for the consideration amount of Rs.74.00 lakhs and till September 2006, she made a payment of Rs.70.00 lakhs but lateron Ms. Deepa Gupta came to know that her flat had been resold to some other person in the same manner as the flat of the complainant/revisionist-herein was sold by the accused/respondent. The complaint of aforesaid Deepa Gupta was also received by EOW regarding the offence of similar nature. As per FSL result, the handwriting expert gave his Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 31 of 34 opinion dt. 25.10.2010 and confirmed that the signatures of the revisionist/complainant on the opening of bank account of Centurion Bank of Punjab (now HDFC Bank, Kamla Nagar) had been forged and fabricated by the accused/respondent namely Yogesh Mittal and Vinet Mittal and signatures of the accused/respondent Vineet Mittal, Director of the said company were found to be genuine on the agreement to sale signed by the accused/respondent Vineet Mittal with the complainant/revisionist, therefore, it shows that from the beginning, accused/respondent with the other accused and Vineet Mittal were manipulating his signatures for their personal use. The accused/respondent Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) never took a plea in the bail application moved before the concerned Ld. ACMM about the factum of the matter being compromised. However, the said application was dismissed on the ground of offence being grievous in nature. The two receipts as discussed above are stated to be forged and fabricated by the accused/respondent. The said receipts were neither on the letterhead of M/s V.M. Build Solution Pvt. Ltd. nor on the letterhead of M/s Mahashakti Builder Pvt. Ltd. Further, other five persons namely Yogesh Mittal, Subhash Bansal, Girish Mittal, Kaushal Kaushik and Dalbir Mann, according to the respondent/accused are neither the directors nor the beneficiary, then accused/respondent are unable to satisfy as to in what capacity they have signed and under whose instructions they have signed it.
23. It has been pleaded by Mr. Kaushal Kaushik that the complainant/revisionist received Rs.1.30 crores in front of him. If it had been the situation, then the signature of Mr. Kaushik would have been there on the first receipts which were produced Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 32 of 34 before the court. It has also been alleged by the complainant that IO never investigated about the source of repayment by the accused/respondent under the above said purported receipts nor calculated any evidence as per the direction of the then Ld. ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The receipt is stated to have been bearing all the dates in handwriting of one person. The allegations upon the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are about the documents forged which gave authority to the bank to transfer and make principal interest or to deliver any money and movable property which was used by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 which also attracts provisions under Section 467/471 IPC since the said document stated to have been used for the purpose of cheating. The allegation is also there about the transaction of worth crores in the said current account used by the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 including the accused Vijay Kumar Mittal (since deceased) for selling of flats. There is also an allegation upon the respondent No. 3/accused that he is accused/respondent in another case pending in the court of Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, therefore, he is a habitual cheater and he is in a desperate need and attempt to cheat innocent people. Further, the IO himself mentioned on the second last page of its final report that there is sufficient evidence against the accused/respondent persons to proceed u/s 420/406/468/471/120B IPC. Moreover, an allegation is also there about one Innova Car bearing No. DL-7CG-0187 in the name of the complainant/revisionist which is in forcible illegal possession of the accused/respondents. All the above discussed facts and circumstances suggest that there is a prima facie case qua the accused/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for attracting the provisions u/s 406/420/469/471/506/120B IPC. The aforesaid judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 33 of 34 respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the impugned order dt. 19.11.2022 of the Ld. CMM (N/W), District Rohini Courts, Delhi is set aside with the direction to the Ld. CMM (N/W) to frame charges against the respondent No. 2 Sh. Yogesh Mittal and respondent No.3 Sh. Vineet Mittal u/s 406/420/469/471/506/120B IPC in this case. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order to Ld. Trial Court. Parties as well as their counsel are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 15.04.2023. Revision petition file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by YASHWANT YASHWANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.03.14 18:16:58 +0530 Announced in the open court (YASHWANT KUMAR) today on 14th March 2023 Principal District & Sessions Judge North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi Cr. Rev. No. 81/2023 Naresh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 34 of 34