Delhi District Court
Hukum Chand (Since Deceased) vs State Nct Of Delhi on 2 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 431 of 2019
CNR No. DLSE01-005476-2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Hukum Chand (since deceased)
S/o late Sh. Dhanu Ram
R/o 77, Ram Puri Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Through: LR Sh. Rajesh Kumar (son of the complainant)
.....Revisionist
Versus
State NCT of Delhi
........Respondent
Instituted on : 23.07.2019
Reserved on : 25.04.2022
Pronounced on : 02.05.2022
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant revision, revisionist/complainant (since deceased) takes exception to the order dated 22.04.2019, passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-06, South District, New Delhi in case bearing FIR No.514/2008, Police Station Kalkaji, whereby Ld. Magistrate dismissed the Protest Petition filed by the revisionist/complainant.
2. Brief facts as noted by Ld. Magistrate in the impugned order are not in dispute and same are being reproduced for the sake of Crl Rev. No. 431/2019 Hukum Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi Page No. 1 of 8 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.05.02 13:07:52 +0530 convenience :-
" A complaint under section 200 Cr.PC alongwith an application under section 156(3) Cr.PC was filed by complainant Hukum Chand against Saroj Rani (Accused no.1), Raj Rani (Accused no.2) Vinod Kumar (accused no.3), Rakesh Kumar (accused no.4), Nihal Chand (Accused no.5) and Narender Chandwani (Accused no.6) alleging commission of offences under section 419/420/467/468/506 r/w 120B IPC.
The complainant's case is that he is a senior citizen of about 72 yeras of age and was residing at 77, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Property bearing No. G-45, Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject property) was allotted to his father late Dhanu Ram in lieu of their ancestral property in Multan, Pakistan. Accused No.1 and 2 are the widowed daughters in law of his step mother Parbati.
In 1972, the complainant's father expired. The complainant's step mother got the subject property mutated in her name illegally by withholding his name as one of the co-owners. After the death of Parbati, accused No.1 to 6 illegally entered into a sale transaction by creating a forged document called "collaboration agreement" dated 25.08.2006. The accused persons also tried to mutate the property in their names but could not succeed as the complainant had filed timely objections.
The accused persons forged the letter number L&DO/RP Sell/42 dated 01.10.1999 purported to be issued by office of Land and Development and duly signed by an officer namely Raj Singh Phogat. As per said letter, the subject property stood mutated in the name of accused No.1 and 2. They applied for sanction of a building plan to be constructed after dismantalling the existing structue by filing the forge letter dated 01.10.1999. When the complainant came to know, he approached building department of MCD after which the Executive Engineer (Building) sought clarifictions from the Deputy Land and Development Officer who informed that the letter dated 01.10.1999 was not issued by their office and was forged. It was further informed that no NOC for sanction of the building plan was given by the office of L&DO and the MCD had sanctioned the building plan without NOC from office of L&DO. Thereafter, MCD revoked the sanctioned plan.
The complainant's case is that the accused persons in conspiracy with each other forged letter dated 01.10.1999 and used it in furtherance of their common goal to get the building plan sanctioned. After revocation of the sanction plan, demolition was carried out by MCD. On that day, the accused persons came to the complainant's residence and threatened him and his family. Accused No.6 Narender Chandani was earlier working in the MCD and was familiar with its working.
Vide order dated 03.10.2008, FIR was directed to be registered. The Crl Rev. No. 431/2019 Hukum Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi Page No. 2 of 8 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.05.02 13:08:06 +0530 present FIR No. 514/2008 dated 14.10.2008 was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation, requisite documents were obtained from the office of L&DO; statements of witnesses were recorded; accused Saroj Rani and Raj Rani were arrested; after completion of investigation, challan under section 173 Cr.PC was filed against accused Raj Rani and Saroj Rani for commission of offence under section 471/34 IPC."
3. Record transpires that during course of proceedings, a protest petition came to be filed by complainant (since deceased) and vide order dated 27.05.2011, matter was directed to be further investigated by Ld Magistrate while observing that the investigation is required to be carried out qua forgery of documents and as well as for ascertaining the role of accused no.6 i.e. the builder as well as the concerned officials of MCD department who had issued the building plan without getting NOC from L&DO office.
3A. Record further transpires that later on, supplementary chargesheet was filed by Investigating Agency wherein it was reported that accused no.1 & 2 were further interrogated and despite search of their house, original forged document could not be recovered. It was further reported that Assistant Engineer, MCD was also interrogated who informed that after scrutiny, sanction plan was granted. AE, MCD further informed that as per prevailing practice, neither the genunineness of the documents nor the original documents were required to be verified. He further informed that no NOC from L&DO was required in view of their Office Order dated 17.12.2004 and letter dated 04.12.2007. It was further reported that NOC from L&DO is required only in cases where building is to be constructed on a vacant plot.
3B. As per the said supplementary chargesheet, inquiry was also
Crl Rev. No. 431/2019 Hukum Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi Page No. 3 of 8
Digitally signed by
ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.05.02
13:08:18 +0530
made from office of L&DO and it was confirmed that the letter dated 01.10.1999 was forged as the same was not issued by their department. Since the aforesaid letter was forged, supplementary chargesheet for commission of offence under section 468/471 IPC was filed against accused no.1 & 2.
4. Trial record transpires that a protest petition to the supplementary police report was preferred on behalf of complainant which was dismissed vide impugned order by Ld Magistrate. The relevant observations of Ld Magistrate are being reproduced for the sake of convenience:
"From the investigation carried out so far, nothing could be inferred to show involvement of accused No.2 to 6 in any manner whatsoever. Even in the initial complaint, the complainant has levelled only general allegations accused No.3 to 6 that they had assisted accused No.1 and 2 in illegally creating a forged document and entering into a sale transaction/ collaboration agreement. In the absence of any material on record, cognizance cannot be taken against accused No.3 to 6 only because accused No.1 and 2 are old and uneducated ladies who could not have forged any documents. This ground is not even sufficient to suspectthe role of accused No.3 to 6. In the protest petition also, nothing is mentioned as to how else the IO should have carried out the investigation to establish the role of accused No.3 to 6. Nothing is shown what role accused No.6 (builder) had in procuring the sanction/ clearances from the concerned departments.
In these circumstances, referring the case for further investigation will not serve any purpose and cognizance against accused No.3 to 6 cannot be taken at this stage."
5. The revisionist is aggrieved with the said order of the Ld. Trial Court and assailed the impugned order on the various grounds which can be summarized as under:-
(i) That the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law having been passed in a mechanical manner and same is liable to be set aside;
Crl Rev. No. 431/2019 Hukum Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi Page No. 4 of 8 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.05.02 13:08:27 +0530
(ii) That despite directions of Ld. Trial Court, IO had conducted the investigation in an utmost biased manner with a clear pre-planned agenda/strategy to shield the main culprits i.e. the sons of present accused.
(iii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that despite taking 07 years to investigate the matter, the chargesheet was again filed in a mechanical manner only against two of the accused conveniently excluding the crucial culprits of the offences that too only in the limited offences; ]
(iv) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that post the revocation of sanction plan on 15.02.2008 when MCD demolished the construction site, all the accused persons manhandled and threatened the complainant and his family;
(v) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that despite specific evidence showing the fact that alleged document was a forged one, no real/sincere efforts were made by the investigating agency to recover the said forged docuemnt;
(vi) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that one of the main accused i.e. the builder was merely examined as a witness and not made an accused by the investigating agency despite it being evidence from the facts and circumstances of the case;
6. Ld. Counsel for revisionist argued on the line of grounds as mentioned in the instant revision petition. He vehemently argued that Ld. Magistrate committed grave error in passing the impugned order as the same was passed hastly ignoring the factual matrix and materials available on record. He further argued that revisionist herein was having reasonable apprehension since beginning that the Investigating Officer was not conducting the investigation as per law. He argued that impugned order is completely silent on the issues raised by revisionist in the protest petition preferred against the supplementary police report. On the strength of these arguments, revisionist seeks setting aside of the impugned order.
Crl Rev. No. 431/2019 Hukum Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi Page No. 5 of 8
Digitally signed
by ANUJ
ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.05.02
13:08:36 +0530
7. Per contra, Ld. Addl PP for the State vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and Ld. Magistrate for the right reasons dismissed the Protest petition. He further argued that the impugned order was passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case. He argued that Ld. Magistrate rightly observed that in the absence of any material on record, cognizance cannot be taken against accused no.3 to 6 only because accused no.1 & 2 are old and uneducated ladies who could not have forged any documents. It was further argued that there was no merit in the protest petition as the objections raised by revisionist were frivolous in nature. It was submitted that the present revision petition is misconceived and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard. Record perused.
9. In the matter of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
10. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 observed Crl Rev. No. 431/2019 Hukum Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi Page No. 6 of 8 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.05.02 13:08:45 +0530 as under:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court.The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view. This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis. "
11. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, this court in its revisional jurisdiction, is not expected to substitute its own view with that of Ld. Trial Court until and unless the order passed by Ld. Trial Court suffers from jurisdictional error or patent infirmity/illegality. In the instant case, as evident from record, Ld. Magistrate while narrating (in detail) the facts, passed a well reasoned detailed order, thereby dismissing the protest petition of the revisionist and therefore, this court cannot and rather ought not substitute its own view with that of Ld. Magistrate (while exercising its revisional jurisdiction) and thereby arriving at a different conclusion.
12. Suffice it would be to say that as rightly observed by Ld Magistrate apart from bare assertion of revisionist/complainant, there is Crl Rev. No. 431/2019 Hukum Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi Page No. 7 of 8 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2022.05.02 13:09:00 +0530 nothing on record to suggest any complicity of suspect no. 3 to 6 and the view of Ld Magistrate (that no cognizance can be taken against accused no.3 to 6 in the absence of any material on record) cannot be faulted with in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Ld. Counsel for revisionist failed to point out any patent illegality/ infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. With these observations, it is held that there is no patent illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
14. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial court along with copy of judgment.
15. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.Digitally signed by ANUJ
ANUJ AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2022.05.02
Announced in the open 13:09:08 +0530
Court on 2nd May 2022 (ANUJ AGRAWAL)
Additional Sessions Judge-05,
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
Crl Rev. No. 431/2019 Hukum Chand Vs State NCT of Delhi Page No. 8 of 8