Delhi District Court
Dapinder Pal Singh vs Chander Kant Pandit on 21 October, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 30/2010
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0125782010
Dapinder Pal Singh
S/o Shri Gurdeep Singh
R/o 181-A/1, Bholanath Nagar,
Shahdra , Delhi-110 032 ...... Revisionist
VERSUS
Chander Kant Pandit
S/o Shri Ved Prakash Sharma
R/o 109, Village Karkardooma
Delhi -110 092 ......Respondent
Date of Institution of Case : 07.5.2010
Date on which judgment Reserved : 13.10.2010
Date on which judgment delivered : 21.10.2010
AND
Crl. Revision No. 54/2010
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0154382010
Shri Ved Prakash Sharma
S/o Shri Sukhdev
R/o 109, Village Karkardooma
Delhi -110 092 ...... Revisionist
Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 1 of 12
VERSUS
Dapinder Pal Singh
S/o Shri Gurdeep Singh
R/o 181-A/1, Bholanath Nagar,
Shahdra , Delhi-110 032 ......Respondent
Date of Institution of Case : 08.7.2010
Date on which judgment Reserved : 13.10.2010
Date on which judgment delivered : 21.10.2010
(Both in CC No. 4910/2009
U/S 468/471/34 IPC
PS Anand Vihar)
ORDER :
This order shall dispose of two Criminal Revisions bearing No. 30/2010 titled Dapinder Pal Singh Vs. Chander Kant Pandit and another, bearing No. 54/2010 titled Ved Prakash Vs. Dapinder Pal Singh , since both the revisions are directed against the same order dt. 09.4.2010 passed in Criminal Complaint No. 4910/2009 instituted by Dapinder Pal Singh .
2. The revisionist Dapinder Pal Singh in Criminal Revision No. 30/2010 (herein after referred to as revisionist No. 1, having filed the revision first in time) instituted a criminal complaint case against Ved Prakash Sharma (herein after referred as revisionist No. 2 having filed revision later in time) and Chander Kant Pandit, the Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 2 of 12 respondent herein , for the offences punishable under Section 420/466/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC, alleging therein that he is the owner having possession of a partly built up plot measuring 200 sq. yards bearing No. 102-A out of Khasra No. 585 min situated at Village Karkardooma , Delhi, which he purchased through registered GPA , Affidavit, Agreement to sell etc. from Rakesh Kumar on 08.5.1996. Rakesh Kumar had purchased the same from Ramesh Kumar Sharma on 18.8.1989 and similarly, Ramesh Kumar Sharma had purchased the same through similar documents from Laxmi Chand Sharma , the original owner of the said plot, on 17.1.1989. The said plot originally measured 400 sq. yards and belonged to late Shri Laxmi Chand Sharma who is the father-in-law of revisionist No. 2. The said plot was initially sold by Laxmi Chand Sharma to Ramesh Kumar who in turn sold it to Ramesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sold it in two parts, one part of 200 sq. yards to revisionist No. 1 and other part of 200 sq. yards to Waryam Dass Khurana . It was alleged in the complaint that there had been a chequered history of litigations between the parties and particularly between revisionist No. 2 and his father-in-law late Shri Laxmi Chand Sharma . In a suit for injunction filed by revisionist No. 1 against late Laxmi Chand Sharma and decided by Shri ZS Solanki, Sub-Judge I-Class, as he was then , it was held that late Laxmi Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 3 of 12 Chand Sharma was in possession of the said plot of 400 sq. yards as owner. The appeal was preferred by the revisionist No. 2 against the said order which was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.5.2003 and thus, the order of the Ld. Sub-Judge became final. It is also alleged that revisionist No. 2 also instituted a contempt application against revisionist No. 1 and Waryam Dass Khurana which was dismissed by Shri Vishal Gogne - Ld. Civil Judge, as then he was, holding that revisionist No. 2 was neither having title nor possession over the plot in question . It is alleged that late Laxmi Chand Sharma expired in the year 1999 and revisionist No. 2 alongwith respondent Chander Kant Pandit, who is his son , forged and fabricated a false sale deed dt. 15.3.1999 vide which late Laxmi Chand Sharma allegedly sold the entire plot of 400 sq. yards to revisionist No. 2 Ved Prakash and on the said sale deed, Chander Kant Pandit signed as an attesting witness.
3. Revisionist No. 1 led his evidence at the pre-summoning stage before the Ld. Trial Court and on appreciation of the facts and the evidence on record, Ld. Trial Court summoned revisionist No. 2 Ved Prakash for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 IPC. However, the complaint as regard to respondent Chander Kant Pandit is concerned, same was dismissed vide the impugned order dt. 09.4.2010.
Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 4 of 12
4. Aggrieved by the said order, revisionist No. 1 has preferred the Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2010 pleading that the Ld. Trial Court erroneously did not summon respondent Chander Kant Pandit though he was equally liable for the offence of cheating and forgery being an attesting witness and being the son of revisionist No. 2. Also aggrieved by the said impugned order, revisionist No. 2 Ved Prakash has preferred Criminal Revision No. 54/2010 pleading that he has been wrongly summoned by the Ld. Trial Court.
5. I have heard Shri Sanjay Gupta - Adv. for revisionist No. 1 (Dapinder Pal Singh) and Shri PL Sharma - Adv. for revisionist No. 2 (Ved Prakash) and have also perused the Trial Court Record summoned during the proceedings.
6. It was contended by Shri Gupta that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent Chander Kant Pandit is the real son of revisionist No. 2 who is an attesting witness to the forged document Ex.PW1/L (before the Ld. Trial Court) and has not appreciated the evidence in correct prospective. It was submitted that the mere fact that respondent Chand Kant Pandit is the real son of revisionist No. 2, who has been summoned, has signed as an Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 5 of 12 attesting witness, clearly shows that prima facie they shared a common intention in forging the document. It was pointed out that Ld. Trial Court had appreciated that cheating and forgery has been committed as there was also interpolation on the reverse of the first page of the sale deed in question where the number of the Sub- Registrar (IV) was interpolated but despite that failed to summon Chander Kant Pandit as an accused.
7. On the other hand, Shri PL Sharma - Ld. Counsel for revisionist No. 2, submitted that revisionist No. 1/complainant withheld the vital documents and evidence before the Ld. Trial Court and therefore, was not entitled to any relief in view of the judgment reported in 2005(3) CC Cases SC 1. It was pointed out that Ld. Civil Judge while dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, vide judgment dt. 24.7.2008 held that the title was not in issue and no finding is merited in this regard and therefore, the said judgment was not relevant to the facts of this case. It was further submitted that the revisionist No. 2 preferred an appeal against the order of Ld. Civil Judge but the same was also dismissed by the Ld. ADJ vide order dt. 09.7.2009. Against the said order, he preferred a CM (M) before the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a suit for possession Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 6 of 12 vide order dt. 11.9.2009. It was further submitted that revisionist No. 2 had already filed suit for possession against revisionist No. 2 on 01.9.2008 which is pending and the present complaint is only a counter blast to it. He further pointed out that against the order of Shri ZS Solanki, Ld. Sub-Judge, as then he was, dt. 30.9.1985 passed in Suit No. 179/82, revisionist No. 2 preferred an appeal against late Laxmi Chand Sharma wherein a compromise was entered into between the two and late Laxmi Chand Sharma made a statement before the Ld. Appellate Court dt 01.3.1999 wherein he deposed that he had not written any deed in favour of anyone else and want to give the property in question to his son-in-law, i.e. revisionist No. 2. He also denied having signed any GPA in favour of Ramesh Kumar Sharma . According to Ld. Counsel, after the said judgment the sale deed was executed by late Laxmi Chand Sharma in favour of revisionist No. 2 on 15.3.1999 and thus, by virtue of it he became the owner of the entire property of 400 sq. yards. It was submitted that this document was within the knowledge of revisionist No. 1 since 1999 as he filed the sale deed in another litigations but the revisionist No. 1 took no action for about 10 years and had filed the present complaint only after he filed a suit for possession .
Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 7 of 12
8. I have considered the rival contentions. From the above facts and arguments of Ld. Counsels, it is clear that the parties are head on in litigations and several civil suits are pending inter say in respect of the same property. It is evident from the copies of the judgments passed by various civil courts and other documents available with the Trial Court Record including the vigilance inquiry initiated on the complaint of the respondent Chander Kant Pandit that revisionist No. 2 Ved Prakash had been taking contradictory stand regarding his title and possession of the suit property in different proceedings. Ld. Civil Judge Shri Vishal Gogne while disposing of the application under Order 39 (2)(A) Rule 1 & 2 CPC, of the revisionist No. 2, observed that during the trial revisionist No. 2 took a plea that he had been in possession of the suit property since 1968. In the aforesaid vigilance inquiry, he gave the statement that he purchased the suit property in the year 1975 from one Ram Kumar. On 01.3.1999 he allegedly entered into a compromise with late Laxmi Chand Sharma in the appellate Court and has now claimed that he is the owner of the property since then . He has already filed a suit for possession . It shows that he is not in possession of the said property.
9. The basic question before this Court is whether Ved Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 8 of 12 Prakash has been wrongly summoned by the Ld. Trial Court or whether respondent Chander Kant Pandit also ought to have summon as an accused by the Ld. Trial Court. The fact as pleaded by Shri Sharma - Advocate that the revisionist No. 1/complainant was in knowledge of the alleged forged sale deed since 1999, would not mitigate any offence of forgery or cheating committed by Ved Prakash as there is no limitation for taking cognizance of those offences. To say that this complaint was a counter blast to the suit for possession filed by him is also uncalled for at this stage as the complaint case was filed on 24.7.2009, i.e. about a year after the filing of the said suit. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for revisionist No. 2 Ved Prakash that no witness was summoned and examined to show that the property was sold by late Laxmi Chand Sharma either to Ramesh Kumar or anyone else in the year 1999. In my opinion and as rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for revisionist No. 1, the same was not required as the certified copies of all the chain of documents of sale were placed on record. At the stage of summoning, the Court has to only make out a prima facie case as to whether the complainant is bonafide or not and whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the persons arrayed as accused. The defence of the accused is not to be considered at this stage.
Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 9 of 12
10. It is a matter of record that late Laxmi Chand Sharma has since expired and therefore, cannot be examined on any aspect or regarding the execution of any document. It is also noteworthy that he made statement before the appellate court on 01.3.1999 and thereafter on 15.3.1999 sale deed was executed and he died on 10.5.1999. The mere statement made by him that he had not executed any document in favour of Ramesh Kumar in respect of the suit property would not make the documents placed on record regarding the sale of the property, nugatory. The truthfulness and veracity of his said statement dt. 01.3.1999 never came in question before the Ld. Appellate Court as there was no one to oppose it. It is further noteworthy that the said statement was made when both late Laxmi Chand Sharma and revisionist No. 1 had already entered into a compromise and therefore, the possibility of the said statement having been made at the behest of revisionist No. 2 cannot be ignored or ruled out.
11. The other argument of Ld. Counsel that Ramesh Kumar and others only entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the property and no suit for specific purpose was filed, whereas revisionist No. 2 derived title out of the proper sale deed are of no importance to the present proceedings. The above facts give a Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 10 of 12 reasonable suspicion regarding cheating and forgery committed on the part of revisionist No. 2 against revisionist No. 1, i.e. to deprive him from the suit property by forging certain documents. Hence, in the light of above, the impugned order summoning revisionist No. 2 Ved Prakash is proper and is upheld.
12. It is an undisputed fact that respondent Chander Kant Pandit is the son of revisionist No. 2 and had been pursuing the litigations with him which is also reflected from the various documents placed with the Trial Court Record. If the said sale deed was fabricated and forged and he signed upon it even as a attesting witness, his criminal intention was very clear to cheat and forge and as such he was equally guilty as revisionist No. 2 Ved Prakash . Hence, in my opinion , Ld. Trial Court erred in not summoning him as an accused alongwith Ved Prakash . Being a son he knew each and everything about the contents of the documents he was signing and in case it is held by the Ld. Trial Court that the sale deed in question was a fabricated document, then he would be equally guilty besides Ved Prakash .
13. In view thereof, I am of the view that the impugned order dt. 09.4.2010 suffers from no impropriety, illegality or Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 11 of 12 incorrectness and is accordingly upheld. However, it is modified to the extent that respondent Chander Kant Pandit be also summoned by the Ld. Trial Court as an accused for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC.
14. With these observations, both the revision petitions stands disposed of. Crl. Revision bearing No. 30/2010 filed by revisionist No. 1 Dapinder Pal Singh stands allowed while that bearing No. 54/2010 filed by revisionist No. 2 Ved Prakash stands dismissed.
Nothing said herein above shall construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
A copy of this order be placed in both the files and a copy be sent to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith the Trial Court Record. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 28.10.2010, date fixed before the Ld. Trial Court. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21st day of October 2010 (SANJAY SHARMA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) - III KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI Crl. Revision No. 30/2010 and 54/2010 12 of 12