Delhi District Court
Sita Ram Gupta vs The State on 29 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT:
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
CR No. 204163/2016
Sita Ram Gupta
S/o Late Shri Bal Kishan,
R/o AH-31, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi
..........Revisionist
Vs.
1. The State
Through SHO,
P.S. Defence Colony,
New Delhi
2. Ved Prakash Mittal,
S/o Late Shri. Moti Ram
3. Sachin Mittal
S/o Shri Ved Prakash Mittal,
4. Nitin Mittal,
S/o Shri. Ved Prakash Mittal,
5. Girish Mittal
S/o Shri Ved Prakash Mittal,
Respondents no.2 to 5 are at:
R/o WZ-258/3, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046
Also at:
C-2/132, Janakpuri,
New Delhi
..........Respondents
Date of institution : 01.07.2016
Judgment reserved on : 29.03.2023
Judgment pronounced on : 29.03.2023
Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.1 of 8
JUDGMENT
1. In this revision, the petitioner/complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has challenged the order of Ld. trial court, dated 13.05.2016, passed in the matter titled as "Sita Ram Gupta vs. Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors." bearing case number 168/02/2014, whereby the objections/protest petition filed by the complainant was dismissed and the untrace report filed by the IO was accepted.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, alleged facts of the case are that on 11.05.1988 the complainant had applied for grant of the fireworks license for the purposes of possession and sale of fireworks and crackers in the name of M/s Gupta & Co., as the sole proprietor of the firm. At that time, there was no partnership firm namely M/s Gupta & Co. On 17.10.1988, the license was granted in the name of the complainant.
On 04.06.1990, the complainant inducted his brother-in- law/respondent no.2/Shri Ved Prakash Mittal, as a partner in his sole proprietorship concern, converting it into a partnership concern vide partnership deed dated 04.06.1990. In the said Partnership Deed, it was clearly mentioned that the complainant was the sole and exclusive owner of the aforesaid license.
Later, certain disputes arose between the complainant and the respondent No.2 in August 2001, and a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts was filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was referred to arbitration. In the arbitration proceedings, the respondent No.2 raised plea that the Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.2 of 8 license was in the name of the partnership firm, and he was also therefore, entitled to use the same. It was then disclosed that in the records of the office of DCP (Licensing), in Form-IV, where the complainant had put his signature, the respondents, illegally and in connivance with officials of the office of DCP (Licensing), had got the word 'Partner' inserted in different ink and handwriting.
The complainant made a complaint to the SHO, but he refused to lodge the FIR. Thereafter, on the direction of the Ld. MM, the FIR was registered. However, after completion of investigation, an untraced report was filed, which was challenged by the complainant by a protest petition/objection, which was dismissed by the impugned order and the untraced report filed by the IO was accepted. Hence, this revision.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent no.2 in connivance with respondent no.3 to 5 has committed the offence of forgery because it was, he who used this document being the beneficiary thereof. She argued that as per forensic report the word 'partner' has been inserted later and because respondent no.2 is the beneficiary thereof, he appears to be the culprit and further investigation is required to arraign him. She also argued that the Ld. Trial court erred in accepting the untraced report and not directing further investigation.
4. Per contra, it was argued by counsel for respondents that Ld. Trial court has rightly accepted the untraced report and the police can further investigate the case as and when any new Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.3 of 8 evidence is found. He also argued that at present there is no lead to conduct further investigation.
5. I have heard the arguments and have also gone through the trial court record.
6. It is pertinent to note that in the petition it is mentioned that in August 2001, when the suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts was filed and it was referred to arbitration on 24.09.2002, wherein the respondent No.2 raised plea that the licence was in the name of the partnership firm, it was then disclosed to him that in the records of the office of DCP (Licensing), in Form-IV, the respondents, illegally and in connivance with officials of the office of DCP, got the word 'Partner' inserted in different ink and handwriting.
However, during investigation, the police collected a letter dated 13.02.2002 addressed to the office of the Joint Chief (Explosive) Department, Faridabad, by the petitioner praying that he wanted to remove the name of the firm i.e., M/s Gupta & Co. from his licence.
It means that the petitioner knew that the licence was issued in the name of the partnership firm/M/s Gupta & Co., well before the matter was referred to arbitration on 24.09.2002.
Thereafter, considering the request of the petitioner, the licence was renewed, and a duplicate licence was granted to him on 31.03.2002, in his name after striking off the name of the partnership firm i.e., M/s Gupta & Co., which was the name of the partnership firm.
Therefore, the averments that licence was granted to the Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.4 of 8 petitioner only and that he came to know about the alleged forgery after the matter was referred to arbitration on 24.09.2002, prima facie appears to be false and it insinuates that the licence was issued in the name of the partnership firm on 17.10.1988, which was later renewed in the name of the petitioner.
This aspect has also been considered by the Ld trial court, by observing in the impugned order as under:
"However, perusal of record shows, IO had collected documents i.e., letter dated 17.01.2003 sent by DCP whereby it is stated that initially vide letter no. 16761/DCP/LIC dated 05.10.1988, the license was issued in favour of M/s Gupta & Company (firm) and complainant had been cited as a partner in the same and subsequently, the said office of the DCP had also issued NOC of renewal of the said license on 31.03.2002 in favour of the said firm."
7. Ld. Trial court has also observed in the impugned order:
"IO had also placed on record the extract of inspection report dated O1.03.1988 issued by ACP/Licensing whereby both the complainant and accused Ved Prakash were present at the time of the inspection of the premises. Form-IV dated 09.05.1988 and a memorandum of understanding dated 05.05.1988 have also been placed on record whereby the complainant and accused no.l had agreed to carry out the business of fire works together from the premises of the complainant at Rani Jhansi Road."
It means that prior to the formal execution of the partnership deed dated 04.06.1990, petitioner and respondent no.2 were doing business as partners, and documents in this Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.5 of 8 regard has been collected by the IO during investigation.
Ld. Trial court has further observed as under:
"Even as per the letter dated 10.06.2002 vide no. DE-52E issued by Joint Chief Controller, Department of Explosives, NC, Faridabad, it is stated that there is internal dispute between the complainant and the accused, who are closely related to each other and it has also been mentioned that both the said parties are making effort to outsmart each other. Thus, it appears that the complainant had entered into an partnership with the accused who is his 'jeeja' and that initially the parties had agreed to conduct a business of fireworks, however, subsequently, some disputes arose between them and they had both tried to usurp the work of the partnership firm which they had started together."
8. Moreover, as per forensic report dated 31.05.2005, regarding the admitted handwriting of respondent no.2 and the forged writing, it was not possible to express any opinion on basis of available material.
9. It is well settled that further investigation means continuation of the earlier investigation and a fresh or reinvestigation is not permissible.
In the instant case the police have collected the relevant documents during the investigation and has also sent the specimen of admitted handwriting and alleged forged handwriting to the CFSL but no conclusive opinion was submitted by it.
Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.6 of 8
10. In the impugned order, after considering the conspectus, it is rightly observed as under:
"...offences mentioned in the present complaint under section 420/468/171 IPC, it is apparent from the chargesheet that admitted handwriting of the accused had been sent to CFSL for examination, however, the same could not be matched with alleged forged word "partner". Therefore, the ingredients of section 468/471 IPC are not fulfilled and thus, the accused cannot be implicated for the said offence. Moreover, in respect of offence under section 420 IPC, nothing has been stated in the complaint that any kind of inducement was made by accused to the complainant to enter into any partnership. In view of the same, section 420 IPC also is not as attracted. Thus, it appears that the parties are logger heads with each other and are only arm twisting each other as the work of partnership firm is a coveted property between them."
11. Having discussed as above, this court is of the view that at present, there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to forward to the Magistrate either the respondents or other suspect. Moreover, as there is no new fact/lead available at present to initiate the further investigation, the untraced report rightly mentions that the further investigation will be started as and when any fresh evidence is disclosed.
12. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, hence, it needs no interference. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.
Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.7 of 8
13. Nothing said herein above, shall, however, be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
14. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
(Subhash Kumar Mishra) Additional Sessions Judge-07, South-East, Saket Courts, ND 29.03.2023 Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State & Ors. Page no.8 of 8