Delhi District Court
East Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Smt. Ramwati Devi on 25 September, 2018
Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision : 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018,
Nos. 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018.
Under Section : 200 Cr.P.C.
Police Station : Krishna Nagar
CC No. : 772/2017
CNR Nos. : DLET01-002040-2018, DLET01-002559-2018,
DLET01-002643-2018, DLET01-002644-2018,
DLET01-002638-2018, DLET01-002639-2018,
DLET01-002641-2018, DLET01-002618-2018.
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 59/2018 :-
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Through its Executive Engineer,
Building Department-I, 5th Floor,
Shahdara (South) Zone,
Near Karkardooma Court, Delhi. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI
W/o. Late Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o. B-53, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
2. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 28.03.2018
Date of Receiving : 31.07.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 15.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 25.09.2018
Decision : Petition is allowed.
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 83/2018 :-
SMT. ALKA R. SHARMA
Additional Commissioner-II,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
Page 1 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018
1. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI,
W/o. Late Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o. B-53, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
2. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ............RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 23.04.2018
Date of Receiving : 31.07.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 15.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 25.09.2018
Decision : Petition is allowed.
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 86/2018 :-
SH. O.P. VIMAL
S/o. Late Sh. Shriram,
R/o. H.No.37, Block-E, Sector-55,
Noida, U.P.-201301. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI,
W/o. Late Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o. B-53, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
2. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ............RESPONDENTS
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 87/2018 :-
SH. IQBAL UMAR KHAN
S/o. Mohd. Umar Khan,
R/o. H.No.B-45, Joshi Colony,
I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI,
W/o. Late Sh. Chet Ram,
2. R/o. B-53, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
3. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ............RESPONDENTS
Page 2 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 88/2018 :-
SH. KULDEEP CHOPRA
S/o. Late Sh. M.M. Chopra,
R/o. H.No.A-73, Ground Floor,
P.D. Vihar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI,
W/o. Late Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o. B-53, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
2. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ............RESPONDENTS
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 89/2018 :-
SH. ASHISH KUMAR GAUTAM
S/o. Sh. Ram Singh Dinesh,
R/o. H.No.B-1/52, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi-110096. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI,
W/o. Late Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o. B-53, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
2. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ............RESPONDENTS
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 90/2018 :-
SH. ANUJ KUMAR
S/o. Sh. G.S. Gaur,
R/o. H.No.B-2/182, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI,
W/o. Late Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o. B-53, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
2. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ............RESPONDENTS
Page 3 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018
AND
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 92/2018 :-
SH. JAI PRAKASH SINGH
S/o. Late Sh. Nanka Singh,
R/o. E-508, East Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SMT. RAMWATI DEVI,
W/o. Late Sh. Chet Ram,
R/o. B-53, Kanti Nagar, Delhi.
2. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ............RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 26.04.2018
Date of Receiving : 31.07.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 15.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 25.09.2018
Decision : All Petitions are allowed.
ORDER
1. These eight revision petitions are directed against order dated 01.02.2018, passed by trial court in one complaint case titled as Ramwati v. Brig. Rajender Singh & Ors., bearing CC No. 772/2017, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., PS Krishna Nagar. Vide impugned order, trial court allowed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C moved by complainant Smt. Ramwati (respondent no.1 herein) and gave direction to SHO concerned for registration of FIR. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to the petitions in hand are that complainant/respondent no.1 herein filed a complaint against employees of EDMC. The allegations were made against 15 officers of EDMC, including Commissioner EDMC, various Deputy Commissioners and Engineers. The complainant alleged that she Page 4 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 had purchased a property bearing no.B-5, Kanti Nagar, Delhi, on 24.06.1971 from its erstwhile owner. This property was an old property, which was built way back in the year 1971. One show cause notice dated 17.02.2010 was issued by MCD in the name of Sh. Chet Ram. It was replied by son of complainant. Sh. Chet Ram was husband of complainant, who expired on 13.06.2006. Applications were moved on behalf of complainant for desealing her aforesaid property and complainant also approached Appellate Tribunal MCD against actions of MCD (now EDMC). Appellate Tribunal had directed for desealing of her property vide order dated 12.12.2011 and had also directed for fresh decision on the representation of complainant.
3. Though, the averments have not been made in very coherent manner, but it transpires from the complaint that after concluding the proceeding of hearing the complainant, once again an order under Section 345-A of DMC Act was passed by EDMC, thereby giving direction for sealing the property of complainant. This order is dated 22.06.2012, but same was signed by Ms. Alka R. Sharma with date of 20.06.2012. The notice dated 17.02.2010 was issued in the name of Mr. Chet Ram, though he was not alive at that time and son of complainant had given information of such fact in his communication to EDMC. Still such notice was issued in the name of Chet Ram. Furthermore, the aforesaid order dated 22.06.2012 referred to inspections carried out at site on 30.01.2012 and 13.02.2012. According to complainant, no such inspections were carried out and even notice was not actually sent to the complainant. Complainant alleged that officials of EDMC had forged the documents in order to harass her and to cause wrongful loss to her. Complainant alleged about commission of offences under Section 419/420/467/468/471/ Page 5 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 409/469/120B/34 IPC.
GROUNDS : -
4. The petitioners in eight revision petitions have challenged the impugned order mainly on the following relevant grounds :-
● That impugned order dated 01.02.2018 is unjust, improper and perverse.
● That trial court did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and overlook the report filed by police. If trial court had done so, then there was not even an iota of material against the petitioners.
● That ld. MM failed to appreciate that actions was to be taken against unauthorized construction of the complainant. Complainant in order to avoid action against her illegal construction, filed complaint so that no punitive action is taken against unauthorized construction.
● That ld. MM failed to appreciate that complaint was filed to pressurize/blackmail the officials of EDMC, so that they succumb to the illegal demands of the complainant and to not take action against the unauthorized construction.
● That ld. MM failed to appreciate that Section 477 of DMC Act gives protection against prosecution in any court for anything, which is done in good faith.
● That petitioners cannot be made to undergo harassment of criminal trial in order to buttress the personal vendetta of complainant.
● That ld. MM failed to appreciate that no specific allegations were made against any of petitioners in the said complaint. ● That ld. MM failed to appreciate that order is being passed first Page 6 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 and then it is dispatched. Therefore, sealing order under Section 345A DMC Act was signed on 20.06.2012 and thereafter, it was dispatched on 22.06.2012.
● That trial court failed to appreciate the regularization application dated 21.02.2012 is not a regularization application as per requirement. Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal MCD never asked for filing the regularization application. The regularization application was addressed to Deputy Commissioner (Land & Building Department), Shahdara South Zone, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, but no such post exists in the department. The regularization application was filed to misguide the department. ● That trial court failed to appreciate the fact that there was no need to file second regularization application, when the first one was already pending.
● That trial court failed to appreciate the fact that second regularization application was filed without any supporting documents. It was intimated to complainant vide valid notice no.EE(B)-I/SH(S)/2014/D-1355 dated 23.04.2014, which was duly served to the complainant.
● That trial court failed to appreciate that complainant had not placed on record any document, which shows that construction was prior to 2006.
● That trial court did not appreciate that house of complainant is below ground level and lower floor can be considered as basement. In Building By-Laws, basement is defined as "the lower story of the building below or partly below ground level". ● That trial court did not appreciate the fact that petitioner Sh. O.P. Vimal was the only member of sealing team, who sealed the Page 7 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 property on 19.06.2010 as per orders of the then Deputy Commissioner.
● That trial court did not appreciate the fact that hon'ble Appellate Tribunal MCD vide order dated 12.12.2011 had quashed and set aside the sealing order dated 24.05.2010 and Sh. O.P. Vimal was EE (B) till November 2011. Therefore, Sh. O.P. Vimal had no role to play. No cognizable offence is made out against Sh. O.P. Vimal as he left the building department, Shahdara South Zone, Delhi in the year 2011.
● That trial court did not appreciate the fact that petitioner Sh. Iqbal Umar Khan was only witness on the show cause notice dated 15.01.2010, under Section 343 & 344 (1) DMC Act and demolition order dated 25.01.2010.
● That trial court did not appreciate that petitioner Sh. Iqbal Umar Khan was JE (B) till October 2010, therefore, he had no role to play.
● That trial court did not appreciate the fact that petitioner Sh. Kuldeep Chopra was posted in the building department on 15.07.2014 and the sealing order was passed on 22.06.2012 by the the Deputy Commissioner.
● That trial court did not appreciate that petitioner Sh. Ashish Kumar Gupta was the only member of the sealing team, who sealed the property on 19.06.2010 as per orders of the then Deputy Commissioner. Sh. Ashish Kumar was JE (B) till November 2011, therefore, he had no role to play.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS AS WELL AS DECISION :-
5. On perusal of complaint, I could not find any clear cut contention Page 8 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 regarding forgery of a particular document and hence, ld. counsel for respondent/complainant was asked to explain as to which document was forged and what is the ground to allege that such document was forged. It was argued by ld. counsels for complainant that documents like order dated 22.06.2012, notice sent to complainant on 07.06.2012 are forged documents, because there are cutting in these documents, which amount to forgery. It was further argued that same number of letter was mentioned on notice for three different persons occupying different properties. It was further pointed out that a different property number was mentioned in the heading of a report of EDMC. Though, para-1 to same referred to complainant, who has a different property. This document is placed as Annexure-G. Ld. counsel submitted that this is also a kind of forgery. He further submitted that para-2 of order dated 22.06.2012 under Section 345A DMC Act referred to service of letter upon husband of complainant, though, husband of complainant had already died on 13.06.2006 and therefore, it is also a case of forgery. Similarly, he referred to another document i.e. Annexure-E, which is copy of envelope addressed to Smt. Chat Ram and submitted that no such person resided at the given address and therefore, this is also a case of forgery. Ld. counsel further took my attention to documents placed at page no.54 to 56. Ld. counsel submitted that no inspection was carried out and it was so noted in the noting also that inspection was not conducted.
Still in the order dated 26.12.2012, it was mentioned that inspection was carried out. Thus, false stands were taken by officials of EDMC and notice was issued to a deceased person namely Chet Ram and all such facts refer to case of forgery.
6. Per contra, ld. counsel for petitioners submitted that there is no case Page 9 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 of forgery at all and complainant simply gave a criminal colour to this case on the basis of her contentions, which were to be raised before Appellate Tribunal MCD. It was further argued that the complaint is totally silent in respect of any forgery being committed or description of any forged document or role of any particular accused.
7. On perusal of the complaint, I do find that it is totally silent in respect of role of any of the named accused persons. Rather, some pleading of it shows that a kind of vicarious liability has been fastened by the complainant. Para-2 of the complaint simply states that accused persons are the employees of EDMC. They were posted on different designations. Accused no.15 is the Commissioner of EDMC and he is solely responsible for day to day acts and affairs of all employees of EDMC. Such pleading does show that accused no.15 was impleaded merely by virtue of his holding a particular position, rather than on the basis of any specific allegation against him. Rather, the whole complaint is completely silent in respect of role of any particular accused person. Though, the order dated 22.06.2012 was shown to be signed by accused no.2 i.e. Smt. Alka R. Sharma, but in respect of other accused persons no particular submission was made.
8. The question is that whether instances of forgery as explained by ld. counsel for complainant, would actually constitute an offence of forgery? The offence of forgery is defined in Section 463 of IPC stating that whoever makes any false document etc with intent to cause damage or injury or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property etc., commits forgery. This definition of forgery shows that making a false document is the first required ingredient of this offence. Section 464 defines making a false document.
Page 10 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018
9. A full bench of Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641, had occasion to deal with the ingredients of forgery and while dealing with this question, the court observed as follows :-
"The first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any communities."
The court further observed that "the definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document is made with specified intention. The questions are (I) is the document false, (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty."
The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it amply clear that in order to constitute forgery, the first ingredient, which requires to be established is making of a false document. While dealing with question of making of false document, Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, held as under :-
"In short, a person is said to have made a false document, if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tempered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses."
10.If I apply the aforesaid test of forgery over the facts stated in the complaint, I am unable to find any instance of forgery in this case. Just because notice was issued and sent in the name of a deceased person, a case of forgery is not made out. Similarly, on the basis of some cuttings and correction made over a document only, a case of Page 11 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 forgery is not made out. Corrections and cuttings are made in any document, whenever it is so required and the cuttings or correction cannot be taken as tampering with the documents in all the cases. In the document in question i.e. order dated 22.06.2012, I do not find such cuttings and corrections made, to be making out a case of forgery. Similarly, if some wrong description of property was mentioned in notice or order or report of EDMC, it does not make the document to be forged document. It would be a case of giving incorrect details of property in the report. By way of giving some incorrect details or mentioning incorrect facts in any document, a document cannot be said to be a forged document, because it does not qualify the criteria of making a false document. It does appear to me that a wrong conception of forgery prevailed over the mind of complainant.
11.For the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the first requirement is that the Magistrate must satisfy himself/ herself that the alleged facts do make out a case of a cognizable offence. If a Magistrate is satisfied about prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence, then it is needless to say that he/ she would also be able to say that which particular cognizable offence is disclosed in the complaint. Thereafter, the Magistrate would see, if there is requirement of investigation by police and depending upon all these factors, a decision is to be taken by the Magistrate.
12.In the present case, I find that ld. MM, though observed that prima facie some cognizable offences have been committed, but at the same time in subsequent part of the order, she further observed that her order does not amount to an opinion of the court that an offence Page 12 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 has been committed. Both these observations are contradictory to each other. Ld. MM did not point out that what particular cognizable offence was disclosed by the complaint and straightaway a direction was given for investigation by police.
13.I do find that such directions were given without due application of mind over the alleged facts in the complaint. As already observed herein above, I could not find a clear cut case of forgery being made out on the basis of allegations made by complainant. It does appear to me that even other Sections have been mentioned in the complaint without any sincerity and without proper application of mind. It is further apparent that all the accused persons have been named without explaining their specific role for commission of any offence. It is also apparent that complainant had been aggrieved of the actions being taken by officials of EDMC against her property. She had already taken a recourse to legal remedies available in law against such action, by approaching Appellate Tribunal MCD or High Court under Writ Jurisdiction. A criminal complaint, however, must disclose commission of some offence, rather than some illegality or wrongs committed by some one. All the illegalities and wrongs may not be a criminal offence, though they may constitute civil wrong.
14.In these circumstances, I do find that the impugned order dated 01.02.2018 does not stand the test of legality and apparently, it causes unnecessary prejudice to the petitioners as well, by putting a pressure upon them in the form of FIR against them. Hence, all the revision petitions are allowed and impugned order dated 01.02.2018 is set aside.
15.Respondent no.1/complainant shall be at liberty to lead her evidence before trial court, so as to establish a case of any criminal offence.
Page 13 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 59/2018, 83/2018, 86/2018, 87/2018, 88/2018, 89/2018, 90/2018 & 92/2018 Trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law. Complainant shall appear before trial court on the date already fixed by trial court.
16.TCR alongwith copy of this common order be sent back to the trial court. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court
PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.09.25
17:37:31 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 25.09.2017 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East
(This order contains 14 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page 14 of 14 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi