Delhi District Court
Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs The State on 25 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH AJAY GUPTA: ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE-4 (SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA COURTS , DELHI
Cr. Revision No. : 36/14
UID NO . : 02404R0308402014
In the matter of
Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat
S/o Shri Gyan Singh
R/o H.No. 1/3039, Gali No. 18,
Ram Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ..... Revisionist
versus
The State
(Govt of N.C.T. of Delhi),
New Delhi. ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 10.10.2014
Final arguments heard : 02.02.2015
Date of order : 25.02.2015
Decision : Dismissed
J U D G E M E N T
1. The present revisions petition has been filed against the order dt. 09.09.2014, passed in the case titled as State vs Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat and Ors, FIR No. 177/11 u/s 420/465/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC, PS GTB Enclave, by Ld. MM, Shahdara, Delhi. Vide aforesaid order, Ld. MM has framed the charge against the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as accused) under section 420/467/471/120B IPC.
Cr. Revision No. : 36/14 Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 1/9
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jindal made a complaint against the accused and some other persons that the accused has taken a sum of Rs. 22,60,350/- from the complainant under the false promise of executing a registered sale deed in respect to the property flat No. 101 E, R-Block, Second Floor, MIG, DDA, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. It is also stated in the complaint that the accused forged number of documents i.e. agreement to sell, power of attorney, affidavit, WILL, payment receipt and possession letter in the date of 18.05.2010, by embossing fake stamp/seal of notary public on these documents and delivered the same to the complainant as genuine documents. It is also stated that the possession of the flat in question was also handed over by the accused to the complainant. On said complaint an FIR was registered against the accused Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat besides other accused persons u/s 420/406/34 IPC and after completion of the investigation a charge sheet u/s 420/465/468/467/471/120B/34 IPC was filed against the accused herein and other accused persons.
3. Vide order dated 09.09.2014, learned trial court framed the charge against the accused u/s 420/467/471/120B IPC and u/s 174 A IPC (as accused was declared P.O).
4. Now, the present revision petition has been filed mainly on the following grounds:
(a) that learned trial court failed to consider that accused himself got the possession of the flat in question from Cr. Revision No. : 36/14 Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 2/9 DDA on 25.09.2010, thus, he could not have handed over the possession to the complainant prior to the said date.
(b) that DDA had allotted the flat in question to the accused and since accused was not in possession to pay the cost of the flat, thus, accused took a loan of Rs. 22,60350/-
from the complainant through one Mr. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal. At the time of granting the said loan the petitioner got signature of the accused on various blank papers , stamp papers and also got signatures on ten blank cheques.
(c) that the market value of the flat increased after receipt of the possession of the flat by the accused. The complainant became dishonest and pressurized the accused to sale out the flat to him for half value, but accused refused for the same and thereafter differences arose.
(d) that learned trial court failed to consider that complainant prepared forged documents on which the complainant got signatures and thumb impressions of the accused and on the basis of these forged documents, the complainant is showing himself as purchaser and accused as seller of the flat. The said forged documents have been prepared by the complainant with the help of his associate Mr. Vinod Kumar Aggarawal as they are into the finance business and used to get signatures on blank stamp papers, papers, blank papers and cheques and Cr. Revision No. : 36/14 Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 3/9 they do blackmail innocent persons. The accused has neither signed the register of notary public nor signed in the register of stamp vendor.
(e) that learned trial court has failed to consider that it is clear from the said act of the complainant and his associate Mr. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal that complainant has cheated the accused and prepared forged documents and also used the documents as genuine.
(f) that complainant was having some singned blank stamp papers and blank papers and the complainant and his associate Mr. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal have misused and forged the documents of selling of flat in question to the complainant.
5. I have heard the submissions of Mr. Rakesh Kochar ld. counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maqsood Ahmed ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor (respondent no.1) and Mr. Vinod Sharma, Ld. counsel for the complainant (respondent no. 2) and perused the trial court record.
6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that as per prosecution case the accused (petitioner herein) forged some documents and used the same as genuine documents to cheat the complainant. Ld. counsel argued that petitioner neither committed cheating nor he forged any documents or used the same. Ld. counsel submits that the original of alleged forged documents are not on record and only photocopies are available on record. He submitted that learned trial court has Cr. Revision No. : 36/14 Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 4/9 framed the charge u/s 467/471 IPC despite the fact that originals of the alleged forged documents are not part of the charge sheet. Thus, he submits that in the absence of original forged documents no charge u/s 467/471 IPC is made out against the accused and accused is liable to be discharged.
7. It is clear from the charge sheet that the prosecution case is not based upon the photocopies of the documents and is based upon the original documents which have been allegedly forged by the accused. The original documents have been filed by the complainant before Hon'ble High Court in a civil suit and to prove the forgery, the original documents can be summoned by learned trial court during the course of the trial.
8. In the present case the expert opinion in regard to the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner would not be required as the petitioner has not disputed that the alleged forged documents contain the signatures and thumb impressions of the accused. The accused has only taken a defence which is also clear from the grounds mentioned in the revision that the accused had only signed some blank documents to obtain loan from complainant and did not execute the documents i.e. Agreement to sell.etc. In this regard the relevant portion of the ground 'xi' of the present petition is very relevant and the same reads as under:-
"Because the ld. trial court also failed to consider the fact that the complainant prepared forged document on which the complainant got signatures Cr. Revision No. : 36/14 Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 5/9 and thumb impression of the applicant on the basis forged documents, the complainant himself as owner/purchaser and showing to the revisionist as seller of the said flat".
9. Since the accused has himself admitted his signatures over these documents, therefore, for the purpose of framing of charge no opinion in regard to the verification of signature is required. The defence of the petitioner that complainant has forged the documents on the blank documents can only be considered and appreciated only after trial and for the purpose of framing of charge only prima facie case is required to be seen.
10.Furthermore, as per charge sheet the seal of notary embossed on the documents in question has been found to be a forged one. This also prima facie show that the documents in question are forged and fabricated documents.
11. In support of his contentions ld. counsel for the petitioner has cited 1995(2) C.C. Cases 18 SC titled as' V. Sujatha Vs State of Kerala & Ors. It is most humbly observed that the case law cited by ld. counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the present case. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to prove the charge of forgery, the photo state copies of allegedly forged documents cannot be relied as the original were not produced by the concerned department during trial despite their availability. In the present case, the trial is yet to begin and prosecution shall be well within its rights to summon Cr. Revision No. : 36/14 Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 6/9 the original documents at the appropriate stage to prove the forged documents.
12. Ld. counsel for petitioner has further cited the case law reported as 2005 (2) JCC 1153 titled as Srichand Hinduja Vs State to contend that no charge of abetment of cheating is made out on the basis of photocopies. It is most respectfully observed that the said case law is also not applicable to the present case as facts of the present case are quite different from the said case. In the said case prosecution had only relied on the photocopies and whereabouts of the originals were not known to the prosecution while in the present case the original documents are available and can be very well summoned during trial to prove the photocopies of the alleged forged documents.
13. Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that charge under sections 467/471 IPC can be framed on the basis of photocopies and he has relied upon the case law reported as 2010(173) DLT 197 titled as Nakul Kohli Vs State. In this case Hon'ble High Court has held that that charge under section 471 IPC can be framed even on the basis of a photo copy of a document. Hon'ble High Court further held that charge can also be framed even where there is a strong suspicion that accused has committed the offence. The relevant para of this judgment reads as under:-
"The contention of the learned counsel that he should be discharged at this stage for offences under section 471 and 474 IPC as the document is a photocopy and thus a secondary evidence, is also Cr. Revision No. : 36/14 Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 7/9 untenable, because in a given case where a photocopy is used as the primary offending article, the same would be the primary evidence for the purpose of trial of the said case. Moreover, as to how a document is to be proved, whether by way of primary or secondary evidence is not required to be considered at the stage of framing of charge. The law in this regard is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge only a strong suspicion of the accused having committed the said offence is sufficient. The reliance of the Petitioner on the decision of this court rendered in Shashi Lata Khanna (Supra) is misconceived. In the said case, during the course of investigation, the accused had produced original forged rent note to the investigating Officer, however, he did not seize the same and thus, the prosecution did not produce the original forged rent note as evidence during the trial. It is in this context that this court held that no reliance could be placed on the photocopy of the forged rent note in the absence of original one. In the present case, since it is at the stage of framing of charge and the trial is yet to begin, this issue will be looked into by the learned trial court during the course of trial.
14. In the case of 2007(5) SCC 403 titled as Soma Chakravarty Vs. State, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the time of framing of charge a prima facie case of the prosecution is to be seen and a charge can be framed where there is grave suspicion that accused might have committed the offence. It is also well settled law that at the time of framing of charge it is not to be seen whether the material placed on record by the prosecution are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The material placed on record is to be seen within a view to see if a prima facie case exists against the accused or not and if there exists a prima facie case then charge can be framed against the accused Cr. Revision No. : 36/14 Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 8/9
15.In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that prima facie there is sufficient material on record to frame a charge against the petitioner for the offence of cheating and forgery. As such, it is held that ld. trial court has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner u/s 420/467/471/120B/174 A IPC and hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
16.File of the revision petition be consigned to record room. Trial court record be sent to the court concerned alongwith copy of this order.
(Ajay Gupta) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara), KKD Courts,Delhi.
(Announced in the open
Court on25.02.2015)
Cr. Revision No. : 36/14
Lokesh Kumar Sehrawat vs State 9/9