Delhi District Court
Smt. Sukhlesh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 March, 2018
Criminal Revision No.2/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 2/2018
Under Section : 200 Cr.P.C.
CC No. : 58769/16
PS : Shakarpur
CNR No. : DLET01-013460-2017
In the matter of :-
SMT. SUKHLESH
W/o. Late Sh. Satish Jain,
R/o.H.No.5/179, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92.
............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
2. SMT. SHASHI
W/o. Sh. Dilip Kumar Gupta,
R/o. 3/130, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
3. SH. DILIP KUMAR GUPTA
S/o. Sh. Babu Ram Gupta,
R/o. 3/130, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
4. SH. LAL MAAN GUPTA
S/o. Sh. Babu Ram Gupta,
R/o. 3/130, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
5. SH. HANUMAN PRASAD GUPTA
S/o. Sh. Babu Ram Gupta,
R/o. 3/130, Lalita Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
Page 1 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No.2/2018
6. BAKEY LAL GUPTA (R-6 dropped vide order
S/o. Sh. Sitaram Gupta, dated 06.03.2018)
R/o. Not Known.
7. Keshav
8. Deepak
9. Ranjeet
10.Sanjeev (Respondents 7 to 10 dropped
vide order dated 25.01.2018)
All R/o 5/179, 2nd Floor,
Lalita Park Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi - 92.
..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 02.01.2018
Date of reserving order : 17.03.2018
Date of pronouncement : 19.03.2018
Decision : Petition is allowed.
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.11.2017, passed by trial court in a complaint case titled as Smt. Sukhlesh v. Smt. Shashi & Ors., bearing CC No.58769/16, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order dated 16.11.2017, trial court dismissed the complaint case without summoning the accused persons. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that petitioner herein filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against respondents herein. Complainant alleged that she was the lawful owner of the property bearing no. 5/179, Lalita Park, Laxmi Page 2 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.2/2018 Nagar, Delhi - 92. Accused Bakey Lal Gupta (respondent no. 6 herein), who was a builder and engaged in construction business, entered into an agreement with complainant in respect of construction of above-mentioned property upto fourth floor, which was to be completed by him within period of seven months on his own expenses and according to the said agreement one floor was to be given to the accused/respondent no. 6. It is further alleged that as per agreement, accused/respondent no. 6 demolished the entire old construction over the above-mentioned property and carried out new construction thereon upto second floor and thereafter, stopped further construction owing to financial crunches, assuming that same would be started very soon. After 2-3 days, accused/respondent no. 6 came to the complainant and told her that sons of his friend namely Keshav (respondent no. 7 herein) and Deepak (respondent no. 8 herein) were preparing for government job and further requested her to allow them to stay in the second floor of her house for sometime. Believing upon the accused/respondent no. 6, complainant allowed Keshav and Deepak to stay in her house on second floor, who were lateron joined by Manjeet and Sanjeev. It is further alleged that accused/respondent no. 6 did not carry further construction on the above-mentioned property of complainant as per agreement entered into between them and kept on giving lame excuses. It is further alleged that thereafter, accused/respondent no. 6 asked the complainant to carry out further construction of third and fourth floor by herself and assured her that he would make payment for the said construction. It is further alleged that on the assurance of accused/respondent no. 6, complainant got constructed third and Page 3 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.2/2018 fourth floor on her expenses, which payment was not given by accused/respondent no. 6 to complainant. It is further alleged that when complainant asked Keshav and Deepak to vacate the second floor, they did not vacate the same, rather, got electricity connection at second floor in the name of Smt. Shashi (respondent no. 2 herein) by submitting false NOC, thereby committing forgery of signature of her husband, who had already expired on 18.02.2014. The complainant filed complaint before the police, however, police did not take any action despite complaint being made by the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed present complaint before the court. GROUNDS : -
3. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 16.11.2017, petitioner has preferred this revision petition on the following relevant grounds :-
● That trial court failed to consider that petitioner examined herself as CW1 and she clearly stated that her husband had expired on 18.02.2013. On 12.05.2014 accused persons prepared a forged NOC by putting forged signature of husband of CW1. Thereafter, accused persons used said forged NOC and got installed electricity connection in the name of accused Shashi, but trial court totally ignored the entire evidence.
● That trial court failed to consider that petitioner examined CW2 and CW3, who brought complaints from police station and DCP Office. Petitioner examined CW4, who proved that forged NOC had been used seeking electricity connection from BSES Office. ● That trial court failed to consider that there is clear prima facie case made out against accused persons and trial court wrongly Page 4 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.2/2018 dismissed complaint of petitioner.
● That trial court failed to consider that it was a fit case to issue summons to all accused persons.
ARGUMENTS MADE BY LD. COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES :-
4. Ld. counsel for petitioner/complainant argued that all ingredients of section 468/471 IPC were established in this case. He submitted that after death of husband of petitioner in the year 2013, a NOC was prepared in 2014 in his name and on the basis of same, electricity connection was taken in the property in question, which belonged to petitioner. He further submitted that connection was taken in the name of accused no. 1 and accused no. 2, 3 and 4 are sons of accused no. 1., who were part of this conspiracy to use forged NOC. For such reasons, they supported Keshav, Deepak, Manjeet and Sanjeev, in order to seek extension of their residence in the property in question.
5. Per contra, ld. counsel for respondents submitted that section 468 IPC is not mentioned in the complaint at all. There is no evidence on record from any handwriting expert to establish that NOC is forged. He further submitted that such NOC was taken and used by accused Bakey Lal, rather than other accused persons.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS & DECISION :-
6. On perusal of complaint and testimony of CW-1, I find that the fact related to death of husband of petitioner/complainant has been established, though, there is some discrepancy regarding his exact date of death. In the complaint, date of death is mentioned as 18.02.2013. Though, in the testimony, it was mentioned as Page 5 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.2/2018 18.02.2014. On the other hand, death certificate proved by complainant as CW-1/1 mentions date of death of her husband as 19.02.2013. However, these discrepancies not so material, so as to go into roots of the case. The material fact is that husband of petitioner i.e. Satish Jain expired either on 18 or 19.02.2013. Petitioner also placed photocopy of agreement with Mr. Bakey Lal and this agreement shows that it was executed between Bakey Lal and complainant on or after 13.07.2013. On the other hand, copy of NOC shown to be executed by Mr. Satish Jain i.e. Mark C, shows that it was prepared on E-stamp paper purchased on 12.05.2014. In this stamp paper, name of Mr. Satish Jain was shown as first party and name of Sashi (accused no. 1) was shown as second party. CW- 4 had produced record from BSES. He proved copy of bill in the name of accused no. 1 and other documents of the same file (22 pages) as CW-5/1. The other documents in the file were in the nature of application form to obtain electricity connection with supporting documents and the supporting documents included NOC on E-stamp paper dated 12.05.2014, purportedly given by Mr. Satish Jain. It is also worth to see that there is another document on E-stamp paper i.e. an indemnity bond furnished by accused no. 1 and this E-stamp paper was also taken on 12.05.2014 with a gap of two minutes only from the time when E-stamp paper for NOC was purchased. Thus, it is well apparent that the NOC purportedly issued by Mr. Satish Jain (deceased husband of complainant/petitioner) was prepared on 12.05.2014, when apparently, Mr. Satish Jain was not alive or this NOC was at least shown to be executed on 12.05.2014, in order to furnish the same to BSES for the purpose of obtaining electricity Page 6 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.2/2018 connection in the name of accused no. 1. In these circumstances, I do find that a very strong prima facie circumstance appears to show that this NOC was forged, so as to be shown to be executed by Mr. Satish Jain on 12.05.2014.
7. Apparently, this document was used for the purpose of obtaining electricity connection, which is a valuable property. With such act of obtaining electricity connection on the basis of alleged NOC, a right/interest was also shown to be created in favour of accused no. 1 as against the right/interest/title of complainant. Thus, besides BSES, even complainant was at the suffering end. Apparently, there was a deception against officials of BSES to show that NOC was genuine and to show that accused had fulfilled all criteria to obtain electricity connection for 2nd floor of this property. The consequent loss was to be suffered by complainant (as mentioned herein above). Therefore, I do find that ingredients of offence u/s 468 and 471 IPC are prima facie established on the record.
8. Now the question is that whether accused no. 1 to accused no. 4 are connected with such offence. Accused no. 1 is apparently beneficiary of such electricity connection, as the connection was obtained in her name. Accused no. 2 to accused no. 4 are sons of accused no. 1 and they are also indirectly beneficiary of this connection. In the background of such circumstance, the allegations made by complainant become material, wherein she alleged that accused no. 1 to accused no. 4 assured the complainant to get her house vacated from Keshav, Deepak, Manjeet and Sanjeev and later on, on 06.03.2016, all four of them extended threat to the complainant claiming that the flat occupied by Keshav, Deepak, Manjeet and Page 7 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.2/2018 Sanjeev belonged to them and if she demanded to vacate the same, then she alongwith her family members would be eliminated. Thus, accused no. 1 to accused no. 4 had been claiming their title over 2 nd floor of this property. Somewhere aforesaid circumstance indicate knowledge on the part of accused no. 2 to accused no. 4 regarding the electricity connection being taken in the name of accused no. 1. Such knowledge gives rise to a suspicion against them being involved in this conspiracy to use forged NOC to obtain electricity connection.
9. The arguments made on behalf of accused persons that such NOC was taken and used by Mr. Bakey Lal, is in the form of a defence of the accused persons. It is settled law that at the stage of summoning of any accused, court is not supposed to consider the probable defence of the accused persons. Such defence is to be taken at the relevant stage. Section 204 Cr.P.C. requires that there should be sufficient grounds to proceed further. In my opinion, there are sufficient grounds to proceed further and to conduct enquiry as well as trial into aforesaid offences under section 120 B and section 468/471 read with section 120-B IPC.
10. From the impugned order, I find that ld. MM did not give any reason to give opinion that dispute between parties was civil and that complaint did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. This was too cryptic decision given by ld. MM and the decision is apparently wrong. The complaint and evidence led by complainant do disclose commission of cognizable offences. In fact, under section 200 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary that there must be disclosure of cognizable offence as the complaint is to be entertained even in Page 8 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.2/2018 respect of non-cognizable offence.
11.Therefore, I do find that impugned order dated 16.11.2017 suffers from illegality, thereby causing prejudice to the complainant. Hence, same is set aside. Since petitioner in this petition opted to drop the case against other accused persons, except for accused no. 1 to accused no. 4, therefore, ld. MM shall proceed further against these four accused persons in respect of offence under section 120-B and section 468/471 IPC read with section 120 B IPC. Ld. MM shall summon these four accused persons accordingly and proceed further as per law. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 22.03.2018.
12.TCR be sent back along with copy of order. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALAPULASTYA Location: Court PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.03.19 17:16:22 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 19.03.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 9 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 9 of 9 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi