Delhi District Court
Mr. Feroz Ahmed vs Deepak @ Ram Bacchan on 10 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 126/2022
CNR No.: DLCT01-004027-2022
Mr. Feroz Ahmed
S/o Late Nooruddin Ahmed
Chamber No. 278, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan
S/o Late Surya Dev Yadav
Shop No. 5335/1, Ground Floor,
Gali Peti Wali, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006
2. Raj Kumar
3. Deepak Kumar
4. Gulshan Kumar
All sons of Late Jeet Kumar
Tenants at Shop No. 5335/1, Ground Floor,
Gali Peti Wali, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006
Also at: 5132, Delhi Jewellery Crystal,
Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006
Also at: 5010, Delhi Jewellery Emporium,
Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006
5. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.03.2022
Date of Arguments : 05.05.2022
Date of Judgment : 10.06.2022
JUDGMENT
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 15
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against an order dated 25.02.2022 (In short 'the impugned order') in complaint case vide Case No. 3155/2020 titled as 'Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors.' whereby Ld. MM-06, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') dismissed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to SHO, PS Sadar Bazar to register FIR against the respondent No. 1 to 4.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR against the respondent No. 1 to 4 for offences under Section 192/193/195/419/420/468/471/ 506/34 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860' (In short 'IPC') on averments that the petitioner is a practicing advocate. The petitioner's father was registered owner of property No. 5335, Gali Peti Wali, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. The petitioner's father had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in his favour to look after the said property. The respondent No. 1 is an illegal occupant of three shops in property No. 5335/1, Ground Floor, Gali Peti Wali, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 (In short 'the said shops'). The respondent No. 2 to 4 sub-letted the said shops without permission of the petitioner.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 15
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 to 4 executed an affidavit in this regard before Competent Authority (Slum), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The respondent No. 2 to 4 were tenants in respect of the said shops since several years and they tendered the rent vide rent receipts. The respondent No. 1 is claiming himself as an owner of the said shops on the basis of false documents. The petitioner had filed a civil suit against the respondent No. 2 to 4 vide CS No. 458/2019 wherein the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming ownership of the said shops and relied on a letter sent by Custodian of Enemy Property for India alongwith a receipt. The petitioner filed a complaint with police in this regard. The petitioner filed a RTI application for verification of the said documents. In reply dated 12.04.2019, office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India stated that the said property is not covered under the purview of 'The Enemy Property Act, 1968'. The respondent No. 1 forged signature of Mr. Utpal Chakraborty, ACEP and PIO of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The respondent No. 2 to 4 must be prosecuted for committing offence under Section 192/193 and 195 IPC. They must be prosecuted for cheating and forgery of documents under Section 420/468/471 IPC. The petitioner filed a complaint with SHO, PS Sadar Bagar and senior officers of police on 12.02.2019. However, police has not taken any action and thereafter, he filed the complaint case alongwith an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 15 ACTION TAKEN REPORT:
4. On being directed, SI Vijay Kumar, PS Burari submitted status report on 21.12.2020, as under:
"2. That during the course of enquiry, it is revealed that Md. Nooruddin Ahmed registered GPA in favor of complainant Feroz Ahmad of property 5335 and 5310- 12, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
3. That during the course of enquiry, the complainant Sh. Feroz Ahmed joined inquiry and told that he had field various RTI application to the Custodian of Enemy Property Department and as per the reply of Sh. Utpal Chakraborty, ACEP & PIO his property is not comes under Custodian of Enemy Department.
4. That in this regard, it is submitted that during the course of enquiry alleged Ram Bachan has been contacted who stated that he is doing business of artificial jewellery at Shop NO. 5335/1, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He stated that he purchased this shop from Nooruddin in year 2008 but as the registry was not executed he was paying rent of 1000 as pagdi. But after the expiry of Nooruddin his son pressurizing him to vacate the shop. He also stated that a civil suit is also pending in Tis Hazari Court regarding this shop.
5. That the alleged letter of Custodian of Enemy Property for India with File No. CEP/Del. Br/08-00-33 of dated 09.05.17 issued to Ram Bachan in respect to property No. 5335, Gali Peti Wali, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar has been got verified from the Custodian of Enemy Property Department. It has been replied by the department that the letter prime facie appears to be forged and has not been issued by this office."
5. SI Vijay Kumar, PS Sadar Bazar submitted further status report on 15.08.2021, as under:
"That it also worth mentioning here that a civil suit for possession vide No. 458/19 was filed by the complainant against Ram Bachan, wherein as per the allegation of the complainant the forged letter of Custodian of Enemy Property Department was filed by Ram Bachan.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 15 The complainant also filed application of order 11 rule 14 before the concern civil court regarding the forged letter. The civil suit is still pending before Ms. Sonam Singh, Civil Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Court and NDOH is fixed for 23.09.2021."
6. SI Vijay Kumar, PS Sadar Bazar submitted further status report on 13.12.2021, as under:
"That it is also relevant to mention here that the forged document has allegedly been filed in civil suit for possession vide No. 322/19 and the same is still pending before Ms. Geetanjli, Ld. ADJ-3, Central, Tis Hazari Court. The complainant also filed application of order 11 rule 14 before the concern civil court regarding the forged letter."
IMPUGNED ORDER:
7. Relevant part of the impugned order is as under:
"So far as the allegations of complainant regarding commission of offences u/s 419/420/468/471 by the proposed accused persons are concerned, it is pertinent to note that as per report filed by the IO, proceedings in which the alleged forged document is stated to have been filed are still sub-judice before the concerned Civil Court and no conclusive findings have been given by the concerned Court regarding the authenticity / genuineness of the said document, therefore, the allegations levelled by the complainant appear to be unfounded.
Thus, having perused the material on record, this court finds that the allegations levelled by the complainant do not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and the present complaint appears to have bred from civil disputes between the complainant and the proposed accused persons. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for invoking powers under Section 156 (3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for directing the SHO of concerned police station to register FIR. Accordingly, with the above observations, application u/s 156 (3) stands dismissed.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 15 A complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is also filed along with the application. Complaint filed by the complainant perused. I take cognizance of the offence. An opportunity is granted to the complainant to prove the commission of offences, other than those u/s 193/195 IPC whose cognizance is barred by virtue of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. by leading evidence in his support. Be put up for PSCE on 11.07.2022."
GROUNDS OF REVISION:
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision petition on grounds, as under:
(a) The trial Court did not apply judicial mind and considered the averments made in the complaint;
(b) The trial Court did not appreciate facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order on surmises and conjectures and presumption;
(c) The trial Court did not consider statutory provisions contained in Section 156 Cr.P.C. that where a complainant is not in a position to collect and produce evidence, police assistance should be provided;
(d) The trial Court did not consider that the documents are beyond control and reach of the petitioner and they can only be obtained through police;
(e) The trial Court did not consider that ATR report dated 21.12.2020 clearly stated that the respondent No. 1 forged document pertaining to the said shops;
(f) The trial Court did not consider that the respondent No. 1 to 4 had prepared forged and fabricated documents by doing forged signature of Mr. Utpal Chakraborthy, Officer of Ministry of Home Affairs and the same can be verified by the police;
(g) The trial Court committed an error in relying upon the judgment in M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
vs. State, 2002 Crl. LJ NOC 333 (Delhi);
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 15
(h) The trial Court did not consider the facts that the respondent No. 2 to 4 breached their statements made before Slum Court and sub-letted the said shops to the respondent No. 1;
(i) The trial Court did not consider that office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, in its reply dated 12.04.2019, stated that the said shops do not come under purview of Custodian of Enemy Property;
(j) The trial Court did not consider that Action Taken Report filed by IO was not complete and conclusive as there was no investigation was conducted by IO;
(k) The trial Court did not consider that IO did not investigate forged documents regarding ownership on the basis of which the respondent No. 1 obtained GST, Sales Tax Number and VAT Tax Number; and
(l) The trial Court did not consider that the complaint disclosed commission of serious offences requiring investigation.
APPEARANCE:
9. I have heard Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 4 and examined trial Court record.
CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court committed a patent error of law in declining prayer for registration of FIR for investigation of serious offences disclosed in the complaint. He referred statement of the respondent No. 2 to 4 recorded before Competent Authority (Slum), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 10.07.2009 and application for recording compromise wherein the respondent No. 2 to 4 stated that they would not sub-let the said shops and would pay rent regularly.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 15
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent No. 1 in civil suit vide CS No. 458/2019 that he received a notice dated 09.05.2017 from the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India that the said shops is an enemy property vested with the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. He referred reply dated 12.04.2019 issued by Mr. Utpal Chakraborty, ACEP and PIO that the said shops do not come under the purview of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. He referred status report dated 21.12.2020 that letter No. CEPI/DEL.BR/08-00-31/946 dated 09.05.2017 prima facie appears to be forged and has not been issued by the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. He referred a letter dated 10.12.2020 issued by the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India in this regard. He contended that forgery of a document is a serious offence. He contended that forgery of a document purported to have been issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India is a very serious offence. He contended that there is need of police investigation regarding the origin of the said document. He contended that there is need of police investigation regarding author of the said document. He contended that the petitioner cannot collect the evidence. He contended that such evidence can only be collected with assistance of enforcement agency. He contended that the impugned order should be set-aside and police should be directed to register FIR and investigate the case.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 15 CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4:
12. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 4contended that a civil suit regarding the said shops is pending adjudication. He contended that the petitioner is invoking criminal administration of justice just to put pressure upon the respondent No. 1 to 4 to succumb to his dictates. He contended that the petitioner is giving criminal colour to a civil dispute pending adjudication before a civil Court. He contended that there is no need of any police investigation. He contended that the trial Court has not committed any legal error in dismissing application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
13. The trial Court did not issue direction to register FIR on following grounds:
(a) Offences under Section 193 and 195 IPC are non-
cognizable and the petitioner cannot seek registration of FIR in view of bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.;
(b) The alleged forged document is subjudice before the concerned civil Court and the civil Court has not given any conclusive finding regarding authenticity thereof;
(c) The allegations made in the complaint do not, prima facie, disclose commission of any cognizable offence;
(d) The complaint emanated from a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 to 4; and
(e) This is not a fit case for invoking power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 15 DISCUSSION:
14. On careful examination of the trial Court record, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 forged a notice vide file No. CEPI/DEL.BR/08-
00-31/946 dated 09.05.2017 purportedly written by Mr. Utpal Chakraborty, Custodian of Enemy Property for India addressed to the respondent No. 1 that property No. 5335, Ground Floor, Gali Peti Wali, Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi is vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India and a receipt No. 774 dated 11.05.2018 pertaining to deposit of an amount of Rs. 94,650/- as rent with the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. It is further grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 relied upon the said documents in civil suit vide CS No. 458/2019 titled as 'Nooruddin Ahmed vs. Raj Kumar'. The petitioner has placed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent No. 1 alleging as under:
"5.....The plaintiff has been doing his business in the name and style of M/s. Sonam Jewelers from the shop in dispute. In the month of May, 2017, the applicant received a notice dated 09/05/2017 from the office of the Custodian, Enemy Property for India wherein it was claimed that the shop in dispute forming part of the property No. 5335, Gali Petiwali, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and also known as 5335/1 is an Enemy Property vested with the Custodian, Enemy Property for India and the applicant was required to pay rent right from 10.09.1965 when the property became Enemy Property.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 15 The applicant approached the plaintiff with the notice and the plaintiff after taking copy of notice told the applicant that he would look into the matter and the applicant need not to worry but nothing was done by the plaintiff. The applicant had no way except to tender rent as demanded by the Custodian, Enemy Property for India because the shop in dispute has been the source of his livelihood and that of his family. The rent receipt for the rent of Rs. 94,650/- was issued to the applicant. The plaintiff fraudulently made the applicant to make payment of Rs. 27.50 lakh knowing well that the property to which the shop in dispute form part is claimed by the Custodian Enemy Property for India."
15. The case of the petitioner is that office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, vide reply dated 12.04.2019 and letter dated 10.12.2020, stated that the said shops do not come under the purview of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and the said letter dated 09.05.017 appears to be forged and was not issued by the office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The case of the petitioner is that forgery of a document pertaining to an immovable property and furthermore, purportedly issued by Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Ministry of Home Affairs is a very serious offence and it should be investigated.
16. This Court does not find any merit in contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 forged the said letter dated 09.05.2017. The respondent No. 1 merely stated that he had received the said notice dated 09.05.2017 and thereafter, he informed the petitioner's father about the said letter and he deposited an amount of Rs. 94,650/- as rent.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 15
17. The allegations levelled by the petitioner do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. The civil Court is seized of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 to 4.
18. A direction for registration of FIR cannot be issued mechanically, without applying judicial mind to facts and circumstances of the case.
19. The trial Court has jurisdiction to apply its judicial mind to facts and circumstances of the case while dealing with an application seeking registration of FIR.
20. In Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"20. It has been held, for the same reasons, that direction by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3) cannot be given mechanically. In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, it was observed: (SCC p. 711, para 11)
11. "The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyad case examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge / Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156 (3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order.
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 15 The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation."
The above observations apply to category of cases mentioned in para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari."
21. In the present case, the trial Court rightly applied its judicial mind and declined prayer for registration of FIR.
22. In cases of this nature where the Magistrate has yet to determine existence of sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons, the Magistrate should take cognizance and postpone issue of process and require the petitioner to produce sufficient material to substantiate allegation made in the complaint.
23. In Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"22.2. The cases where Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". Category of cases falling under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari may fall under Section 202.
22.3. Subject to these broad guidelines available from the scheme of the Code, exercise of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of justice from case to case."
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 15
24. If police assistance is needed, the trial Court can take recourse to Section 202 Cr.P.C.
CONCLUSION:
25. This Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set-aside. The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
26. TCR alongwith copy of judgment be sent back to trial Court.
27. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.06.10
18:19:55 +0530
Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II
on this 10th June, 2022 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 15
Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT010040272022 Crl. Revision No. 126/2022 10.06.2022 Proceedings convened through Video Conferencing.
Present : The petitioner in person.
Mr. M.N. Jha, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 4.
Vide separate judgment, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2022.06.10
18:20:11 +0530
Sanjay SharmaII
ASJ03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
NK 10.06.2022
Crl. Rev. No. 126/2022 Feroz Ahmed vs. Deepak @ Ram Bacchan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 15