Delhi District Court
Renu Mittal vs Anil Mittal & Ors. 1/5 on 27 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
WEST, THC NEW DELHI
Renu Mittal ........... Complainant
Vs.
Anil Mittal & Ors. ........... Accused/respondents
PS Paschim Vihar CC No. 57/1/11 ORDER ON SUMMONING
1. Vide this order I shall decide the point of summoning of respondents u/s 200 Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated facts as per the complainant are that the respondent no.1 is the husband of the complainant, who has deserted her as her mother could not provide sufficient dowry to them. Respondent no.2 and 3 are her Jeth and Jethani, while respondent no.4 is the pandit and marriage broker. Respondent no.5 and 6 are the attesting witnesses to the fabricated documents dated 20.02.2006. The complainant is a patient of epilepsy and this fact was in the knowledge of the respondents.
3. It has been alleged that the respondents had forcefully taken the handwriting and signatures of the complainant on some papers before leaving her at her mother's place. On 20.02.2006, the respondent no.1 to 4 had put the complainant in fear of Renu Mittal vs Anil Mittal & Ors. 1/5 death and pressurized her to write their words in her handwriting. When the complainant refused to do so, they all beat her up and did not give her the medicines for epilepsy with an intention to kill the complainant. The complainant did what the accused persons said under duress. It has been further averred that the complainant lodged a complaint in CAW Cell against her husband and in-laws and FIR No.304/07 was registered under Section 498A, 406 & 34 IPC. The complainant found that the above mentioned fabricated document was also attached with the charge-sheet file in the said FIR. The complainant has averred that she had never appeared before any notary public nor the accused no.5 and 6 were present at the time when she signed it. She has submitted that there is no entry number of the register of notary public and hence it appears that the stamp and signatures of notary public were false and forged.
4. To lead pre-summoning evidence, the complainant herself has entered the witness box as CW-1. She has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and relied upon the following documents:-
1. The stamp paper dated 20.02.2006 is Mark A.
2. Copy of complaint of SHO PS Paschim Vihar dated 26.03.2006 is Mark B and postal receipts are Ex.P1.
5. CW-2 is Ahlmad from the court of Ms. Mona Tardi Kerketta, Ld. MM (Mahila Court) Tis Hazari who had brought the record of FIR No.304/07 under Section 406/498A/34 IPC PS Roop Nagar. Certified copy of the charge-sheet is Ex. CW2/A and certified copy of the stamp papers in question is Ex. CW2/B. Renu Mittal vs Anil Mittal & Ors. 2/5
6. CW-3 Rajender Singh Beniwal, Notary Public having registration number 1783/2000 has deposed that he had never stamped or attested the Affidavit i.e CW2/B.
7. CW-4 Anand Prakash admitted that non-judicial stamp paper on which the alleged document has been prepared, were sold by him to Anil Mittal. Certified copy of the stamp appearing on the second page of the document is Ex. CW4/A.
8. I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for complainant and perused the record carefully.
9. Counsel for complainant has prayed that the accused be summoned for offence under Section 468/471/352/323/193 IPC.
10.Let us first discuss the relevant provisions of law for the purpose of this case.
11.The offence of forgery has been defined under Section 463 IPC. The said section has been produced here verbatim:-
"Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
12.Hurt is defined under Section 319 IPC as causing of bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person.
13.The offence of assault has been defined under Section 351 IPC. The necessary ingredients to prove an offence of assault are as follows:-
Renu Mittal vs Anil Mittal & Ors. 3/5
1. Making of any gesture or preparation by the accused.
2. With the intention or knowledge that such gesture or preparation will cause any person to apprehend use of criminal force upon him by the accused.
Explanation to Section 351 IPC says, "Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault".
14.In the case at hand, the document alleged to have been forged is Ex. CW2/B. The first and foremost ingredient of forgery is making a false document. As per Section 464 IPC, a person is said to make a false document when he signs, makes, seals or executes a document or part thereof with the dishonest fraudulent intention that such document is believed to have been made, signed or sealed or executed by some other person who actually had not made, signed, sealed or executed it.
15.The complainant has alleged that the accused persons had threatened her to write their words on blank paper and affix her signature thereupon. Further, she has alleged that though she never present before the notary public, the stamp of notary public has been affixed on the said papers. PW-3 has clearly stated in his testimony that he has never affixed his stamp on the said document i.e Ex.CW2/B.
16.Hence, from the testimony of witnesses and the documents on record, it appears that the accused persons have threatened and assaulted the complainant and made her write and sign one document. Later on, a false stamp of Notary Public Renu Mittal vs Anil Mittal & Ors. 4/5 was affixed on the said document to show that it was sworn before the Notary Public by the complainant. Hence, respondent no.1 and 2 be summoned for offence under Section 471, 352, 323 & 506 IPC. No offence is made out under Section 468 IPC as the document was not used for the purpose of cheating by the respondents.
17.The court is of the view that no offence is made out against the respondent no. 3 and 4. It is hard to believe that a Pandit or a marriage broker would have any motive to threaten or pressurize the complainant in the manner alleged. Also, no specific allegations has come against accused no. 3 and 4. As far as accused no.5 and 6 are concerned, they are alleged to be the attesting witness to the document Ex. CW2/B. No specific allegation has come against these two respondents. Hence, no offence is made out against these two respondents as well.
18.Hence, the court is of the view that the prima facie offence of forgery, assault, and causing simple hurt are made out against the accused no. 1 & 2. In view of the above discussion, application is allowed to the extent that the respondent no.1 and 2 be summoned for the next date of hearing for offence under Section 471, 352, 506 & 323 read with Section 34 IPC. PF be filed within 7 days from today.
19.Put up for further proceedings on 09.03.2015.
Announced in the open court (SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
on 27.01.2015 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT/NEW DELHI
Renu Mittal vs Anil Mittal & Ors. 5/5