Delhi District Court
The Case Of The Prosecution In Brief Is ... vs K Vatsal'S Presence on 30 July, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.R.K.PANDEY, MM02 (CENTRAL) TIS
HAZARI COURTS/ DELHI
FIR No. 168/11
U/s 419/420/468 IPC
PS: Timar Pur
JUDGMENT
1. Computer I/D of the case : 02401R0477422011
2. Date of Commission of the offence: In the year 2010
3. The name of the complainant : Sh. Satish Yadav
4. The name & address of accused: Tejinder Singh
s/o Sh. Ajit Singh
r/o House No.A30, Phase
II Chander Vihar, Delhi
5. Date of institution of FIR : 30.07.2011
6. Date of receipt of this case in
this court : 29.09.2011
7. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
8. Date of reserving the case for order: 30.07.2014
9. Date of Decision : 30.07.2014
FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh
2
10.The Final Order : Convicted u/s 420/471 IPC
Acquitted u/s 467/468/201 IPC
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the year 2010 within the jurisdiction of police station Timar Pur accused with the object of the cheating the public persons induced them for getting the employment in NDPL and collected Rs. 6 to 7 lac by said misrepresentation and accused with a view to cheat the public persons prepared forged documents in forms of appointment letters (valuable security) with NDPL with forged signatures of CEO and GM in the name of R. Sharma and R. Singh respectively and accused in order to cheat the public persons used the forged appointment letters of NDPL and accused with a view to destroy the evidence regarding the cheating and forgery destroyed the forged appointment letter with NDPL. After the investigation, challan was filed and vide order dated 04.01.2012 accused Tejinder Singh was charged for offence u/s 420/467/468/471/201 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 3 twenty six prosecution witnesses.
11.PW1 Sh. Satish Yadav deposed that his head office is at Hadison Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and there some people approached regarding fake appointment letters and told that one person namely Tajinder Singh has given these fake appointment letter and the said Tajinder Singh claimed that he is NDPL officer. PW1 further deposed that the photocopies of the appointment letter were seem to be fake as the signatures on the appointment letters as GM was of fake person namely R. Sharma as no such person was employed in the office. PW1 further deposed that officer on duty informed to Hans Raj and Devender Kumar that no person by the name of Tajender Singh is employed at the HR NDPL office and advised Hans Raj and Devender Kumar to approach the police and make the appropriate complaint. PW1 further deposed that thereafter again in the month of July 2011, one another complaint was received from one Sh. Sunder Singh and he complained that accused had assured him to get the load enhanced in his shop as well as in his home as he is employed in the NDPL and the said complaint and the forged appointment letters Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B were thereafter referred by their FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 4 head office to Vigilance Department and thereafter Vigilance Department officials alongwith the consumers of NDPL namely Hans Raj and Devender tried to search out the accused in village Burari and subsequently in Uttam Nagar and on 21.07.11 accused alongwith Hans Raj and Devender appeared in vigilance office at Wazirpur and there the accused assured that he will return the money which he had taken from Hans Raj and Devender with respect to getting them employed. PW1 further deposed that undertaking Ex. PW1/C was also given by accused in writing and he also brought the statements of Hans Raj and Devender which were recorded at their vigilance office and the same are Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E . PW1 further deposed that on the same day, accused alongwith Hans Raj, Devender and vigilance officials of company came to deponent office and they appeared before deponent as deponent was Nodal Officer of the company for filing the appropriate complaints to the police regarding the matters of the complainant and deponent approached the officials of PS Mangolpuri alongwith the complainants and on the next day, i.e. 22.07.11 deponent alongwith his team and the complainants namely Hans Raj, Devender and Sunder Singh went to FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 5 PS Mukherjee Nagar and SHO concerned informed them that he had taken action with respect to the complaint of Sunder Singh and thereafter Sunder Singh informed them that the accused has cheated many other persons in the area of PS Burari. PW1 further deposed that on the next day, i.e. 24.07.11, deponent reached at PS Mukherjee Nagar where Sunder Singh alongwith six other persons met with him and said six persons handed over to him the copies of complaints lodged by them with PS. PW1 further deposed that he personally lodged a complaint with DCP North EX.PW1/G and DCP North West on 29.07.1 and one Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Assistant Manager from NDPL alongwith some consumers also met to DCP North and informed her about the complaints and thereafter deponent was informed that the FIR in the present matter has been lodged by the officials of PS Timar Pur on 30.07.11 and accused was thereafter apprehended.
12.PW2 Sh. V.K.Vatsal deposed that accused first met him at Dheer Pur at his friend's factory in May 2010 and accused told him that he was an employee of NDPL and that there are some vacancies coming out in the NDPL Department like clerical job, Supervisor, Engineer, FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 6 and enforcement inspector and accused can get deponent's son Varun Vatsal a job in the NDPL as enforcement inspector, and for this accused demanded Rs. 2.5 lacs from the deponent. PW2 further deposed that accused told him that out of these 2.5 lacs, 75,000 was to be paid in advance and the rest was to be paid after getting the job. PW2 further deposed that on 2021 June 2010, deponent gave Rs. 75,000 to the accused. PW2 further deposed that on 12/08/10, the accused gave one appointment letter to him and also introduced with two more persons namely Pradeep Papreja and Rahul and accused stated that both of them employed with accused in NDPL and they are under training with him and he also inquired with both of said persons and they stated that they are under training with the accused and accused further stated that deponent interview has been conducted and he will get appointment letter soon but deponent did not receive any letter till November and deponent contacted to the accused and accused kept him assuring that he will receive the appointment letter in few days. PW2 further deposed that deponent was asked on 06/07.11.2010 to come at the house of accused at Sant Nagar Burari to collect money back and then deponent alongwith Sh. Ravinder, FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 7 Kapil Sharma and two/three more persons went to the house of accused and the accused was not found at his house and neighbours informed them that the accused has already left on the previous night. PW2 further deposed that wife and children of the accused misbehaved and threatened to them and at the house of accused they met several persons who were also there to get their money back from the accused which was taken in lieu of getting employment. PW2 further deposed that thereafter finally on 15.11.2010 , deponent lodged the complaint on PS Timar Pur and the police officials received the complaint but no FIR was lodged but inquiry was initiated. PW2 further deposed that on 23.11.10, accused came at PS and deponent was also present there and accused stated that he is willing to return Rs. 2.5 lacs and in the PS accused himself wrote the settlement deed where he agreed that he will return Rs.2.5 lacs to all of us. PW2 further deposed that accused did not paid the settlement amount and they came to know that accused had fled from his address Sant Nagar, Burari to unknown location two/three months ago and thereafter deponent kept on searching the accused and also visited the police station many times and police asked him to trace out FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 8 the whereabouts of the accused but he was unable to trace him out. PW2 further deposed that in the month of July 2011, they were informed by vigilance department and asked to came at PS Mukherjee Nagar and deponent alongwith other persons went to PS Mukherjee Nagar probably on 21.07.11 and there one official namely Sathish Yadav of NDPL, one another Mr. Bahuguna and one Sikh gentleman met them and their complaint was not registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar and then they all approached to DCP North and on DCP instructions case was registered at PS Timar Pur. PW2 further deposed that after registration of the case he was called by brother of the accused who informed him that accused has already involved in similar cases of fraud in Rajasthan and deponent informed this fact to the IO of present case and IO of the present case conducted investigation regarding this and collected some papers. PW2 further deposed that the complaint dated 15.11.10 given by deponent at PS Timar Pur is Ex.PW2/A.
13.PW 3 Smt. Bharati Papreja deposed that in the year 2010, his husband Pradeep Papreja came in contact with accused Tajinder Singh who pretends himself to be in service of Enforcement FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 9 Department, NDPL Delhi and accused also apprised deponent's husband that accused can secure a job in the NDPL to any person interested in it and deponent's husband requested Tejinder Singh to secure a job for him in NDPL and accused demanded Rs. 2.5 lacs from deponent's husband for getting job of enforcement officer in NDPL and deponent's husband gave Rs.90,000/ as advance to the accused for the aforesaid job. PW3 further deposed that on 02.07.10 at about 01:30 pm, accused Tajinder Singh had handed over appointment letter of job in NDPL of deponent's husband to her and accused took the letters back from them on the pretext that he would give the same in the evening and accused further told to her that these letters would be sent through post by the NDPL and deponent kept waiting for it for a long time, but did not get any letter neither from NDPL nor from the accused. PW3 further deposed that other persons namely, Anju, Dinesh, Kuldeep Rana, Pankaj Dataria, Kapil, Kuldeep had also given money to the accused for job in NDPL and they contacted the accused several times, but on one or another pretext, accused kept fooling them and on 15.03.11, the accused fled away from his house. PW3 further deposed that till date, neither she get FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 10 any job nor the accused returned the money .
14.PW4 Pradeep Papreja deposed that in the year 2010, he was searching for a job and one property dealer namely Subhash introduced him with one Sardarji namely Tejinder Singh and when deponent met the accused, accused told him that he is high ranking officer in the NDPL in Enforcment Cell and he can get him a job in the NDPL. PW 4 further deposed that in the month of June 2010, accused came to deponent's house and told him about the job of enforcement inspector at NDPL and further told him that it will take about 2.5 lacs and if deponent give him money, deponent will be able to get the job and on that day deponent gave Rs. 90,000/ as cash to the accused in the presence of his father Sh. Ram Lal, his wife Bharati, his neighbour Usha Juneja and Chintu Chaudhary and the accused told to the deponent that he will receive the appointment letter within 15 days. PW further deposed that he also introduced nine persons to the accused who were also seeking job and accused told him that other persons for the job in enforcement department it will cost Rs. 2.5 lacs and for clerical job it will cost Rs. 1.5 lacs and aforesaid nine persons including Pankaj Singh paid Rs. 1.25 lacs in FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 11 his presence to the accused in accused house and at the house of Pankaj's friend Sh. Rakesh Soni. PW further deposed that Smt.Anju Pal also paid Rs. 90,000/ to the accused in deponent presence at the house of the accused at Sant Nagar and remaining was paid at Aggarwal Sweet in Sant Nagar. PW further deposed that Sh. Gautam Jaiswal,Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Sh. Kuldeep Rana, Sh. Rameshwar Papreja, Sh. Kapil, Sh. Rahul Singh and Sh. Dinesh also paid Rs. 70,000/ to the accused in his presence for clerical job. PW further deposed that after making initial payment of Rs.90,000/ deponent kept on asking the accused by calling and visiting him and in the end of month of June 2010 deponent had a altercation with the accused regarding the appointment letter. PW 4 further deposed that on 02.07.10 he received a phone call from the accused regarding appointment letter and then deponent reached at the house of accused and accused has shown him the appointment letter and on seeing appointment letter deponent told that this letter is without dispatch number, upon this accused replied that dispatch number will be dispatched by the NDPL Office to deponent house. Deponent further deposed that he alongwith his appointment letter and FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 12 appointment letter of others went to his house and deponent clicked appointment letter through digital camera and after this deponent again went to the house of accused and returned the appointment letter to the accused. Deponent further deposed that after about two three days accused told him that his training will start for three months and after that deponent will receive the joining letter from NDPL department. Accordingly deponent receive the phone call and went to the house of accused for his training which was to be carried out under accused only and accused took the deponent to Ashok Vihar NDPL and Rohini Court and the training schedule carried on for five to six days and accused introduced him to many persons working in the NDPL Office including Gyander Singh working in NDPL Hudsen Lane, Mr. Gyan of Ashok Vihar, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Mr. Shailender in the Rohini Court Legal Head of NDPL and other persons of NDPL. Deponent further deposed that thereafter for few day he kept on asking the accused for issuing the appointment letter and accused kept assuring him and deponent was also called at Hudsen lane, kingsway lane, at the head office of NDPL. Deponent further deposed that in the month of October 2010, he went to the FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 13 house of accused at Sant Nagar Burari for appointment letters but accused gave them assurance and on 11 November deponent visited the office of Ashok Vihar for collection of appointment letter and there he kept on waiting for the whole day but non appeared and accused does not responded on the phone. PW4 further deposed that thereafter ultimately on 04:00 pm deponent inquired from NDPL office who categorically stated that no such appointment letter was issued by their office and thereafter deponent entered in to st the office of Ashok Vihar NDPL and met Mr. Gyan on the 1 floor and deponent asked him the list which he has shown and said Mr Gyan informed them that he had shown the list on the asking on the accused. PW4 further deposed that on the next day they went to the NDPL office at Hudsan Lane and deponent shown the copy of the appointment letter,photographs of the appointment letter etc. but they denied the issuance of the said letter. PW4 further deposed that he tried to search the accused but he never met him and ultimately on 15.11.2010 deponent lodged the police complaint with the SHO PS Burari but no action were taken on complaint but action was taken on complaint of NDPL and in the month of July/ August 2011, FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 14 deponent were shown the photograph of the accused and deponent identified them. Deponent further deposed that he went to the office of Delhi Police at Rohini and accused was apprehend from his house at Uttam Nagar.
15.PW5 Mrs. Anna deposed that in the month of July 2010, one person namely, Mr. V.K vatsal who is known to her told her that he had given some money for getting job in NDPL for his son namely Sunny s/o Mr. V.K. Vatsal and deponent father Lt. Sh. Narayan Singh took interest and discussed with Mr. V.K. Vatsal that his grandson Anuj Kumar was also in search of job along with other four persons known to him namely, Ruchika, Jaiveer, Hement Meena and Vineet who were also in search of job. PW5 further deposed that after five to seven days, Mr. V.K Vatsal came to deponent house along with one Sardar ji/sikh gentleman and accused told them that for clerical job in NDPL Department, Rs.1,50,000/ will be charged and accused also demanded advance money and at that time Rs one lac were paid to the accused by PW's father in her and in Mr. V. K Vatsal's presence at their house. PW5 further deposed that after about five to six days, the remaining amount of one lakh fifty thousand rupees was paid to FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 15 the accused at bus stand Timarpur by deponent in the presence of Mr. V.K. Vatsal. PW5 further deposed that the accused assured them that the jobs for the aforesaid five persons will be given to them within a period of one to one and half month and in due course of time, the accused kept on lingering the matter and deponent met and called him regarding this, but all in vein. PW5 further deposed that the above said five persons accompanied the accused in various NDPL officer for the purpose of appointment letter, but the accused ll kept on lingering it. PW5 further deposed that the accused also shown some appointment letters to Mr. V.K. Vatsal and to the deponent and the appointment letter was on the letterhead of NDPL and for the post of clerical job and thereafter, the accused could not be found and his phone was switched off. PW5 further deposed that thereafter,they kept on searching for the accused but all in vein and lastly complaint was made by various persons at PS Timarpur but their money was still not received by neither any job was given to them.
16.PW Sh. Varun Vatsal (Typed as PW5) deposed that his father had a friend who is running a factory at Dheerpur and through that friend his FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 16 father was introduced to accused Tajender Singh and accused told to deponent's father that accused is NDPL Officer and he was having good links with the higher officials of the NDPL and accused can secure the job for anyone in the NDPL. PW5 further deposed that his father requested accused to get a job for deponent in enforcement department of NDPL and accused told deponent father that for getting the job in NDPL they had to pay Rs. 2,50,000/ and deponent father paid initial payment of Rs. 75,000/ in July 2010 to the accused for the purpose of securing the job for deponent and accused appraised to deponent and his father that deponent will get Rs. 80,000/ salary per month for the aforesaid job. PW5 further deposed that the remaining payment was to be paid to the accused after deponent posting and accused also received payment from several other persons for purpose of securing the jobs in NDPL and accused Tajender Singh several times called the aforesaid persons at NDPL office situated at Hadson and Ashok Vihar. PW5 further deposed that accused Tajender Singh had shown them appointment letters and told them that there was no dispatch number mentioned on the said appointment letters therefore he had taken back the said appointment FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 17 letter from them and thereafter for several days they had not received the appointment letters and accused also escaped. PW5 further deposed that the accused had committed cheating and fraud with him and other persons.
17. PW7 Sh.Gautam Jaiswal deposed that in the month of June, 2010, he received information from one Pardeep regarding Tajender Singh who was stated to be employed in NDPL at higher post & Tajinder Singh could arrange a job for the deponent against consideration of Rs 1,50,000/ out of which Rs 70,000/ was to be paid prior to appointment and Rs 80,000/ after appointment. PW7 further deposed that he had handed over Rs 70,000/ to Pardeep for further handing over to Tajinder Singh. PW7 further deposed that after about one month he met with Pardeep in NDPL Office, Kingsway Camp who introduced the accused to him & after some time Tajender Singh informed that appointment letter could not be prepared on that day as someone had expired in the office . PW7 further deposed that he visited several times to the office of NDPL regarding his appointment however, he could not get any appointment despite assurance given on behalf of accused.
FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 18
18.PW8 HC Jitender Singh deposed regarding registration of FIR EXPW 8/A on 30.07.2011 on the basis of complaint EXPW 8/B. PW8 further deposed that he made endorsement on complaint EXPW 8/B.
19.PW9 Sh. Narender Singh deposed that he received information regarding accused through Pardeep who introduced deponent's brotherinlaw Kuldeep to the accused & Rs. 30,000/ was handed over to the accused & accused assured for arranging a job to Kuldeep Rana and after one month Pardeep informed that appointment letter had been issued and Rs. 40,000/ was again given to the accused Tajender Singh and accused had shown some unsigned appointment letter and assured to give appointment letter very soon. However, Kuldeep had not received any appointment letter and accused cheated them.
20.PW10 Sh. Jasbir Singh has not supported the case of prosecution.
21.PW11 Sh. Kapil Sharma deposed that Mr. V K Vatsal is his friend and both are in property dealing business and in the month of June 2010, Mr. V K Vatsal had informed that one person namely Tajender Singh had assured him for job for his son namely Varun Vatsal in NDPL and also informed that Tajender Singh has also introduced FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 19 himself as a officer of NDPL. Mr. V K Vatsal had also informed that a dealing had taken place between him and Tajender Singh and he assured him to arrange the job of his son demanding Rs. 2,50,000/ out of which 75,000/ had been paid to Tajender Singh as a token amount and remaining was be paid to Tajender Singh after getting job. PW 11 further deposed that on his request Mr. Vatsal had arranged a meeting with accused Tajender Singh regarding the job of relative of the deponent namely Yogesh and Yudhvir Chouhan and accused Tajender Singh met him and introduced himself as a higher official of NDPL and assured for job as clerical staff in NDPL to his relative Yogesh and Yudhvir and demanded Rs. 1,50,000/each and 50,000/each as a advance. PW11 further deposed that he had paid Rs. 50,000/each (1,00,000/) to the accused Tajender Singh in the presence of Mr. V K Vatsal and accused had also assured for job within one or two months but matter was linger on by the accused and no job has been arranged by the accused. Sometime, accused called him at office of NDPL, Hudson Lane and Wazirpur for the purpose of training but nothing has taken place. PW 11 further deposed that he also came to know that some forged appointment letters had also FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 20 been given by the accused to Mr. V K Vatsal and when the appointment letters were handed over by the accused and verified from NDPL, it was revealed that the same were forged and accused had cheated them. PW11 further deposed that they made complaint to NDPL and police officials and later on accused was arrested in the present case.
22.PW 12 Sh. Ravi Dutt deposed that he know V K Vatsal and in the month of June 2010,Mr. V K Vatsal had informed that one person namely Tajender Singh had assured him for the job of his son namely Varun Vatsal in NDPL and also informed that Tajender Singh has introduced himself as a officer of NDPL and retired from DESU and Mr. V K Vatsal had also informed that a dealing had taken place between him and Tajender Singh and he assured him to arrange the job of his son demanding Rs. 2,50,000/ out of which Rs 75,000/ has already been paid to Tajender Singh as a token amount and remaining was to be paid to Tajender Singh after getting job. PW12 further deposed that he had asked to Mr. Vatsal about the job of son of colleague namely Ravi Dutt S/o Sh. Purshottam Dass and he asked him to arrange a meeting with accused Tajender Singh and FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 21 later on in year 2010 V K Vatsal had arranged a meeting with Tajender Singh at Timar Pur outside house of Mr. V K Vatsal and accused had introduced himself as a higher official of NDPL and deponent had asked accused Tajender for the job of Ravi Dutt and he assured him for the job as clerical staff in NDPL and demanded Rs. 1,50,000/and 50,000/as a advance. PW12 further deposed that his colleague Ravi Dutt had paid Rs. 50,000/to the accused Tajender Singh in the presence of Mr. V K Vatsal and accused assured him for job within one or two months but matter was linger on by the accused and no job had been arranged by the accused. PW12 further deposed that he came to know that some forged appointment letters had also been given by the accused to Mr. V K Vatsal and when the appointment letters were handed over by the accused and verified from NDPL, it comes to the notice that same were forged and accused had cheated them.
23.PW 13 Sh. Mohit Malik deposed that he received information about the accused Tajinder Singh through one Varun Vatsal S/o Sh. V K Vatsal who informed him regarding arrangement of his job by accused Tajender Singh and in the month of August 2010 a meeting was FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 22 arranged between accused Tajender Singh and deponent in the house of Varun Vatsal and accused introduced himself as higher official of NDPL and when deponent asked for his job , accused demanded Rs. 2,50,000/ out of which deponent paid Rs 75,000/ to Tajender Singh and remaining amount was to be paid after getting the job. However, deponent could not get any job and thereafter deponent alongwith other persons made complaint at PS Timar Pur.
24.PW14 Sunder Singh deposed that in the month of FebruaryMarch 2011, he met with the accused through son of the accused who was working as sales boy in the shop of the deponent. PW14 further deposed that accused introduced himself as a higher officer at NDPL and deponent was in the need of increasing of sanction of load at his shop and at his residence and in this regard accused asked him and demanded Rs. 6,000/ and deponent had handed over the same but sanctioned load had not been increased and he made complaint against the son of the accused as well as accused in PS Mukherji Nagar. Accused never returned the money of the deponent.
25.PW15 Hansraj deposed that in the year 2010 he came to know that one person Tajender is giving assurance for job at NDPL after getting FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 23 payment and on this he went to the office of NDPL Hudsan Lane and met to the accused Tajender Singh and asked him for job. Deponent further deposed that accused had demanded Rs.1.5 lakh for the job at NDPL and asked to pay after getting the job and accused introduced himself as the officer of NDPL. PW15 further deposed that he paid Rs 50,000/ to the accused and accused assured for issuance of appointment letter and accused had shown appointment letter EXPW1/A and assured that deponent receive the same through post, however deponent could not get any appointment letter and accused cheated him .
26.PW16 Devender Kumar Sharma deposed that accused Tajender Singh was working with him in Transport prior to 15 to 16 years and one day accused called to the deponent and asked him about his current job and during the talk accused assured the deponent for getting a job at NDPL. One day accused had shown one appointment letter EXPW 1/B to the deponent. PW16 further deposed that accused had assured him for issuance of original appointment letter. However, deponent could not get any job in NDPL.
27. PW 17 Sh. Rajbir Sahu deposed that in the year 2006, a raid was FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 24 conducted by the NDPL official and they imposed costs of Rs. 1,56,580/ upon him as deponent was the owner of the said jhuggi and in year 2010, one Ganga Ram who was having a factory at Indira Vikas Colony had arranged a meeting with accused Tajender Singh regarding assessment for settlement of above said fine imposed by the NDPL and accused had assured to settle the above said costs of Rs. 1,56,580/ and demanded Rs. 55,000/ for the full and final settlement of the said cost and deponent had paid Rs. 55,000/ to the accused and accused assured that he paid said Rs 55,000/ at NDPL . However, warrants were issued against deponent from Electricity Court, Rohini and on which deponent contacted with the accused and accused had given a cheque issued by the son of accused namely Daljeet for amount Rs. 20,000/ in the favour of deponent but the same was dishonored twice and when again deponent tried to contact with the accused , accused had left his house and ran away and deponent settled the matter before Electricity Court for amount of Rs. 81,000/.
28. Witness PW Harpinder Kaur (typed as PW17) deposed that accused Tajinder Singh was her tenant in her house in the year 2011 FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 25 on first floor and police conducted the search of the tenant premises in presence of deponent and prepared memo EXPW17/A.
29.PW 18 Sh.Ramesh Kumar deposed that in the year 2010 he alongwith Kapil Sharma met with V.K.Vatsal who assured for getting a job for the son of deponent against consideration of Rs 4 to 4.5 lac and in the month of June, deponent met with accused Tajinder Singh at the house of V.K.Vatsal and asked sum of Rs 4,50,000/ for securing job for his son and deponent gave Rs 50,000/ in cash to the accused Tajinder Singh. However, son of the deponent could not get a job and accused cheated him .
30.PW19 Harjinder Kaur has not supported the case of prosecution.
31.PW20 Sh.Dharam Pal proved regarding the tenant verification in respect to the accused and got proved EXPW 20/A.
32.PW 21 Sh.Anil Kumar Ahuja got proved the account of son of the accused Daljeet Singh at Canara Bank , Burari Branch and got proved the documents EXPW 21/A and deposed that cheque bearing no. 831362 was issued by Daljeet Singh .
33. PW 22 SI Vikram deposed that on 30.07.2011 he was posted at P.S Timarpur as SI and on that day the investigation of the present case FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 26 was marked to him by the SHO and he received the case file after the registration of the FIR and on that day he alongwith the victim Pradeep Papraja and V.K. Vatsal went to the house of the accused Tajinder Singh and arrested him at the instance of both the victims and prpeared arrest memo Ex. PW2/C and also conducted the personal search of the accused and prepared personal search Ex. PW2/D. PW further deposed that on 31.07.2011 he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW2/E and later on further investigation was marked to Inspt. Rajesh Kumar and in the month of March, 2013 he received the FSL result and filed the same before the court through supplementary charge sheet.
34.PW 23 Ct.Pawan deposed that on 29.08.2011, he was posted at PS Timarpur as a Constable and on that date, IO/Inspector Rajesh Kumar send him to the Bank of Baroda, Nawada Branch to collect the document regarding the account of wife of accused Harjinder Kaur and he collected copy of PAN Card of Harjinder Kaur, Voter - I Card, tenant verification form and statement of account of Harjinder Kaur from Bank Manager.
35.PW24 Ct.Gaurav deposed that on 08.08.2011, he was posted at PS FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 27 Timarpur as Constable and on that date, he alongwith the IO produced accused Tejender before the Court and obtained police custody remand of accused and IO obtained specimen handwriting of the accused and took accused to the hospital for his medical examination and returned back alongwith him at PS. PW 24 further deposed that IO interrogated the accused and IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused. PW24 further deposed that on 30.08.2011, IO had handed over to him a letter for obtaining certified copies of the documents from Canara Bank, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi and depoent went to the Canara Bank and handed over the letter of the IO to the Branch Manager and after sometime Branch Manager had handed over certain documents to the deponent to which deponent handed over to the IO after returning from the bank.
36.PW25 Inspector Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 03.08.2011 he was posted as Inspector at P.S. Timarpur and on that day investigation of the present case was handed over to him and at that time accused Tajender Singh was in JC. PW 25 further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses/victim and on 08.08.2011 he took one day Police Custody remand of accused Tajender Singh and also obtained FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 28 specimen signature and handwriting of accused Tajender Singh on documents collectively Ex.PW25/A with the permission of the court and recorded supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW25/B of the accused. PW 25 further deposed that on 09.08.2011 he took the accused to his house and seized one letter for the purpose of admitted handwriting of accused and prepared seizure memo Ex.PW25/C and letter Ex.PW25/D. PW 25 furhter deposed that he prepared inspection memo of house of accused Ex.PW17/A . PW 25 further deposed that during investigation he also seized photocopy of KYC form of Daljeet Singh, Photocopy of his PAN card, Voter card and certified copies of bank statement of his accounts bearing no. 3009 and prepared seizure memo Ex.PW25/E .PW 25 further deposed that during investigation he also seized the KYC form of Harjinder Kaur wife of Tajinder Singh of account no. 26198, i.e. residential proof given at the time of taking house on rent (tenant verification form), copy of PAN card and statement of account of Harjinder Kaur and prepared seizure memo EX.PW25/F .PW 25 further deposed that he also seized one agreement/compromise agreement and prepared seizure memo Ex.PW25/G. FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 29
37. After recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which all the incriminating evidence was put and explained to the accused to which accused denied and opted to lead defence evidence.
38. In defence evidence accused himself step into witness box as DW1 and deposed that he was in the business of property dealing since last 78 years in the partnership of V.K.Vatsal & Pardeep Paprija and also used to assist the public persons in Mega Electricity Lok Adalat regarding settlement of the electricity bills and during that time, he came to know some of the official of NDPL and on 2122.07.10, some of the official of NDPL came at the tenanted house at Uttam Nagar & they took him to their office at Wazirpur and they made certain allegation against him that deponent gave some assurance on behalf of the NDPL for job to some people to which deponent denied and stated that he had not done any such thing and they tortured him & stated to him to give false statement regarding his involvement but deponent refused for the same. DW1 further deposed that they they took him to their office at Pitam Pura & kept him in one room for three days & deponent asked them to call the FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 30 police but they did not call the police and after three days, they took him to the office of Special branch of Police at Rohini & handed over to him to senior Inspector Surinder Kr. who called family members of the deponent and obtained photocopies of the identity proof of family members of deponent and asked family member to return & they kept deponent sitting till 28.07.10 . DW1 further deposed that on 30.07.10 in the evening police official namely Vikram Dahiya and some officials of NDPL & V.K.Vatsal, Pardeep Paprija & some other unknown persons reached at the house of the deponent & Vikram Dahiya threatened to the wife of deponent to not call any person & they apprehended the deponent & they started pressuring for confessing the offence to which deponent refused and they also inquired from the son of deponent and later on kept him in the lock up. DW1 further deposed that on next day, SI Dahiya interrogated him in PS & pressurize him to confess and obtained signatures on some blank papers . DW1 further deposed that he had not committed any forgery against any person neither created any documents and complaint against him is false. DW1 further deposed that the complainant who were in direct contact with V.K.Vatsal & Pardeep FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 31 Paprija and police has not recovered any document from deponent as deponent have not prepared any document.
39. After defence evidence, matter was fixed for final arguments.
40. I have heard the final arguments at length on behalf of state as well as on behalf of the defence through Ld. Defence counsel.
41. It is argued on behalf of the State that prosecution has duly proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is further argued on behalf of the State that accused had cheated innocent people in similar fashion and gave false assurance for job to the unemployed people/complainants and by doing so received huge amount of money. Hence accused is liable to be convicted .
42. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of defence by Ld. Defence counsel that accused is falsely implicated in present case and police in connivance with the complainants, V.K.Vatsal and Pardep Papreja falsely implicated him in presence case. It is further argued that there is numerous contradiction in testimonies of prosecution witnesses and V.K.Vatsal and Pardep Papreja were earlier known to the accused as accused was in partnership business with them and due to business dispute, both of them falsely implicated FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 32 him . It is further argued that prosecution has not produced single document to show that accused has ever prepared any document regarding appointment letter to any of the complainants or their relatives . It is further argued that prosecution story is based on false and fabricated facts and it is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence accused is liable to be acquitted.
43. Heard. Perused. As per prosecution story in the year 2010 within the jurisdiction of police station Timar Pur accused with the object of the cheating the public persons induced them for getting the employment in NDPL and collected Rs. 6 to 7 lac by said misrepresentation and accused with a view to cheat the public persons prepared forged documents in forms of appointment letters (valuable security) of NDPL with forged signatures of CEO and GM in the name of R. Sharma and R. Singh respectively and accused in order to cheat the public persons used the forged appointment letters of NDPL and accused with a view to destroy the evidence regarding the cheating and forgery, destroyed the forged appointment letter with NDPL.
44. In order to prove its case, prosecution had relied upon the FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 33 testimonies of witnesses PW1 to PW 25. PW1 in his testimony deposed that some persons reached at his office alongwith fake appointment letter with alleged signatures of GM, NDPL and with the averment that same was given to them by the accused . However, accused was not the employee of NDPL nor the letter EXPW 1/A & B were issued by the office of NDPL to any Pw15/Hansraj and PW6/Devinder Kumar. PW1 in his testimony also deposed that on 21.07.11, accused alongwith PW 15/Hansraj and Devinder Kumar visited to the office of NDPL and accused assured to PW 15/Hansraj and Devinder Kumar for returning the money which was given by them to the accused for securing employment to them & accused also furnished an undertaking EXPW 1/C in this regard and PW1 recorded the statement EXPW 1/D & E of PW 15/Hansraj and Devinder Kumar in this regard and on 22.07.11 PW1 alongwith PW 15/Hansraj, Devinder Kumar & Sunder Singh reached at PS Mukherjee Nagar for taking action against the accused. However, police had not taken any action . PW 1 in his testimony also deposed that on 29.07.11 he personally meet in this regard to the DCP (North) alongwith complaint EXPW 1/G & on 30.07.11 FIR in present matter FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 34 was lodged.
45. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW2 Sh. V K Vatsal who deposed that in the month of May 2010, accused had stated to him that he is an employee of NDPL and told him for getting an job to his son Varun Vatsal and demanded Rs 2.5 lac for the same and PW 2 had paid to the accused Rs 75,000/ as advance and on 200810 accused gave one appointment letter EX PW 2/B and despite that son of PW 2 could not get any job and when PW 2 asked for return of money, accused did not return the same and PW 2 lodge complaint EX PW 2/A to the police and accused was arrested.
46. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW3 Smt. Bharti Papreja in support of its case. PW 3 in her testimony deposed that accused presented himself to her husband and deponent as employee of NDPL and asked for Rs 2.5 lac from them for getting job in NDPL and her husband gave Rs 90,000/ to accused and on 020710 at about 1.30 pm accused had handed over appointment letter to her and it was again taken by the accused on the pretext that same would be sent by the post office by NDPL and PW 3 or her FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 35 husband could not get any job in NDPL.
47. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW4 Sh.
Pardeep Papreja in support of its case who deposed on the same line of PW3. PW4 deposed that he lodged complaint to the Police EXPW 4/A against the accused.
48. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW5 Mrs. Anna in support of its case who deposed that accused assured her and her father for getting a job in NDPL and accused took Rs one lakh fifty thousand from her in cash but she could not get any job in NDPL nor accused have returned her money.
49. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW7 Gautam Jaiswal who deposed that accused received Rs 70,000/ through one Pradeep for securing a job in NDPL for Gautam Jaiswal. PW Gautam Jaiswal further deposed that despite the assurance given by the accused, he could not get any appointment letter for the job in NDPL.
50. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW8 Jitender Singh who got proved the registration of FIR EX PW 8/A on the basis of complaint Ex PW 8/B. FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 36
51. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW Ravi Dutt who deposed that accused assured to Ravi Dutt for getting a job to the son of his colleague and Ravi Dutt had paid Rs 50,000/ to the accused however accused had issued forged letter of appointment which was not issued by NDPL. Accused neither returned the money to Ravi Dutt nor the son of colleague of Ravi Dutt get any job in NDPL.
52. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW Mohit Malik who deposed that accused had assured to him for getting a job in NDPL and PW Mohit Malik had paid Rs 75,000/ in this regard however he could not get any job nor accused returned the money to him.
53. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW Surinder Singh who deposed that accused had asked sum of Rs 6,000/ for increasing the sanction load of an electricity connection which was paid by him but his sanction load was not increased.
54. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW15 Hans Raj who deposed that in the year 2010 he met with accused in NDPL office Hudsan Lane and accused presented himself as officer FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 37 of NDPL and assured for a job to Hans Raj and Hans Raj had paid a sum of Rs 50,000/ to the accused and accused had handed over an appointment letter Ex PW 1/A which on inquiry by Hans Raj was not issued from the office of NDPL.
55. Prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW Harpinder Kaur in whose presence police has searched the house of accused and she got proved the memo EX PW 17/A.
56. IO of the case deposed that he recorded the statements of the witnesses and recorded the statement of accused when the case was marked to him and filed the challan/final report after completion of investigation .
57. On the other hand, accused himself step into witness box as witness DW1 & deposed that he has been falsely implicated by the police and official of NDPL. DW1 also deposed that he was in business of property dealing in partnership with V.K.Vatsal and Pardeep Papreja & he came in contact with official of NDPL as he used to assist the public persons in Mega Electricity Lok Adalats & on 30.07.10 some police officials alongwith some officials of NDPL and V.K.Vatsal and Pardeep Papreja and with some unknown persons FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 38 came at his house & pressurized him for confessing the offence & they conspired and falsely implicated him. DW1/accused also deposed that he had not committed any offence of forgery against any person neither created any documents.
58. To prove the allegation against the accused for offence 420 IPC & 471 IPC prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW1. By way of testimony of PW1, prosecution has duly proved that accused was not employee of NDPL and victims namely Hans Raj & Devinder Kumar approached to the NDPL alongwith the fake appointment letters EXPW 1/A & EXPW 1/B for their employment in NDPL and on verification NDPL found those letters EXPW 1/A & EXPW 1/B as fake and fabricated and by way of testimony of PW1, prosecution is able to establish that accused had furnished an undertaking EXPW1/C to the official of NDPL for returning the money of victims namely Hans Raj & Devinder Kumar. The testimony of PW1 is also corroborated by the testimony of PW 15 Hansraj who deposed that accused shown him the appointment letter EXPW 1/A & PW15 also deposed that he make complaint to the office of NDPL & inquired from the NDPL Office by which he found that accused was not a employee of FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 39 the NDPL neither the letter EXPW 1/A was issued from the NDPL. Testimony of the PW1 is also corroborated by the testimony of witness PW16 Devinder Kumar who also deposed that the appointment letter EXPW 1/B was shown by the accused to him and when he approached to the office of NDPL for inquiry he came to know that appointment letter was forged one. Witnesses PW 15 & 16 have categorically stated in their testimonies that accused had demanded money for securing job in NDPL and introduced himself as officer of NDPL and PW 15 had paid money to the accused and accused had shown appointment letter EXPW 1/A to him as his appointment letter. Prosecution by way of testimony of PW1 and PW 15 & 16 has also established that they approached to the police for legal action against the accused after getting knowledge regarding the act of accused. Prosecution has also able to prove that accused in similar fashion also cheated the other victims i.e. PW2 V.K.Vatsal, PW4 Pardeep Papreja,PW5 Mrs. Anna and PW Mohit Malik. All the witnesses/victims namely PW2 V.K.Vatsal, PW3 Bharti Papreja, PW4 Pardeep Papreja,PW5 Mrs. Anna and PW Mohit Malik deposed that accused demanded money for securing job to either to the FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 40 witnesses or their relatives and they had also paid part amount of demanded money to the accused. However,all the victims neither get any job in NDPL nor accused returned their money. Accused took the defence that victims V.K. Vatsal and Pardeep Papreja were business partner of the accused and they falsely implicated the accused in connivance with the police. However, accused has not produced any document in regard to his alleged partnership business with the victims V.K. Vatsal and Pardeep Papreja. Hence, defence as taken by the accused is not a genuine defence. In view of the above discussions, the court is of the considered view that prosecution has duly proved the charge for offence u/s 420/471 IPC against the accused. Hence, accused Tejinder Singh s/o Sh. Ajit Singh is held guilty for offence u/s 420/471 IPC & convicted for the same.
59. Prosecution is failed to prove the charge for offence u/s 467/468 IPC as prosecution is failed to establish that the document/forged letter EXPW 1/A & EXPW1/B were prepared by the accused as prosecution has not lead any evidence in this regard. Hence, accused is acquitted for charge offence u/s 467/468 IPC.
60. Prosecution has also failed to establish that accused destroyed FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 41 the evidence regarding cheating and forgery with respect to charge u/s 201 IPC neither lead any any evidence in this regard. Hence, accused is acquitted for charge offence u/s 201 IPC.
61. In view of the above discussions, be put up the matter for arguments on point of sentence with respect to offence u/s 420/471 IPC for 02.08.14.
Announced in the open court (RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY) on 30.07.2014. MM02 (Central)Tis Hazari Court DELHI FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh 42 FIR No. 168/11 , State v. Tejinder Singh