Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar vs . Suresh Kumar Gupta on 23 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN
LD. ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURTS ; NEW DELHI
CC No. 287/13
PS Dwarka Sector 23
U/s 200 Cr.PC
Raj Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta
Unique ID: 02405R0132562010
ORDER ON CHARGE
23.04.2016
1.Vide this order, I shall decide whether the charge is to be framed against accused or not.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused is GPA holder of Sh. Amarjeet S/o Sh. Kali Ram, with respect to 1/3rd undivided share of land measuring 900 square yards which comes to 300 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 79, 81 & 82 situated in area of Village Pochanpur Colony, known as Lal Dora at Pochanpur, New Delhi-110045, and apart from having the said GPA, accused has also the agreement to sell, affidavit, full and final receipt and Will dated 03.08.1998. Executant Amarjeet has not revoked the GPA and did not rescind from the said sale with the accused Suresh Kumar.
3. It is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that on the basis of the above said documents, accused sold the said property to complainant R/o WZ-180, Palam Village, New Delhi, on 31.08.2007 for a valuable consideration. It is further stated that as the accused was acquainted with the complainant, hence, at the time of purchase of the property the accused did not handover the original papers of the said property and only showed the photocopy of the documents.
CC No. 287/13Raj Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta ..2..
4. It is further alleged that on the representation of the accused, the complainant purchased the said property. The photocopies which were shown to the complainant were forged and bore the number of the property as falling under Khasra No. 79/81/82 falling in Lal Dora of Village Pochanpur, whereas the property with respect to which the executant Amarjeet had executed the documents were in relation of property falling in Khasra No. 18/5/1/1/, situated in Lal Dora of Village Pochanpur, New Delhi.
5. It is further alleged in complaint that accused changed the Khasra No. 18/5/1/1 to 79/81/82 falling in Lal Dora of Village Pochanpura, New Delhi, and sold the property which was never in the name of Amarjeet to the complainant. That it was only on 10th November, 2009 that the complainant was able to lay in the hands on the original documents pertaining to property and was shocked to see that the Khasra Number had been scratched and refilled as Khasra No. 79/81/82 instead of 18/5/1/1, and hence, accused committed a forgery by selling the said property to complainant as Amarjet had executed the documents with respect to 18/5/1/1 of land instead of 79/81/82.
6. It is further alleged that it was not in the knowledge of complainant that the original Khasra number of property was 18/5/1/1 which was changed to Khasra No. 79/81/82 falling in the Lal Dora of Village Pochanpur, New Delhi, and hence, CC No. 287/13 Raj Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta ..3..
accused not only forged the documents but also used them to make unlawful gain for himself and to cause unlawful loss to the complainant.
7. It is further alleged that when complainant confronted the accused person about the forgery, the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences and threatened to eliminate complainant if he asks for his money back.
8. It is stated that complainant went to PS Dwarka Sector 23 and informed them about the entire episode and also made a written complaint dated 24.11.2009 which was registered at DD No. 60-B and requested to take legal action against accused but the police officials did not take any action against accused person, and thus, this complaint was filed.
9. The application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2010 and in his support complainant examined as many as three witnesses. Vide order dated 14.09.2012, accused was summoned u/s 420/468/471 IPC. Thereafter, pre charge evidence was led.
10. In pre-charge evidence, complainant has examined three witnesses. CW-1 is the complainant himself who has stated on the same lines as stated by him in his complaint and had adopted his pre-summoning evidence recorded on 11.03.2011. He has been duly cross-examined. CW-2 Ramphal is the brother of complainant, who has also CC No. 287/13 Raj Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta ..4..
adopted his pre-summoning evidence and was duly cross examined by the defence counsel. Similarly, is the case with CW-3 Rajesh.
11. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there is no explanation given by the complainant as to how they came to know on 10.11.2009. he submits that testimony of CW-1 cannot be relied upon to frame charge against the accused. He further argued that CW-3 who in his evidence at pre- summoning stage has stage that Suresh Kumar had made some alternation in the documents, has denied this fact in his cross examination conducted on 01.10.2015.
12. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for complainant has argued that in good faith they had entered into sale transactions with the accused and the documents were finally executed on 31.08.2007, however, on the date of execution, no original documents were given. It is only in the year 2009 that they came to know about the fraud which has been committed by the accused, and prima-facie there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused.
13. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
14. As per the complaint, it is only on 10.11.2009, the complainants were able to lay hand on the original documents. He has also stated in the complaint that CC No. 287/13 Raj Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta ..5..
accused was acquainted with the complainant and hence at the time of purchase of the property, the accused did not hand over the original documents and only showed the photocopy.
15. Whereas in the cross examination of CW-2, he has clearly admitted that previous chain of the title documents were given to Raj Kumar by accused Suresh Kumar Gupta on the date of execution of the sale documents i.e. 31.08.2007. Therefore, the entire story of the complainant that he had seen the original documents for the first time on 10.11.2009 is false and baseless. CW-2 in his cross-examination has also admitted that one Rajesh, who is the resident of his village had approached him for purchase of the property and had initially showed him the papers, only after verification they agreed to purchase the same. If verification was carried out by the complainant and his brother before purchasing the plot then the discrepancy which they are trying to point out would have come to their knowledge at the initial stage but that is not the case. Therefore, it appears that the entire story has been concocted later on, for the reasons best known to the complainant.
16. Once the original documents were given to the complainant on the date of execution, he himself could have seen on the face of it as it is clearly reflected that white fluid has been put at the place where khasra number is mentioned. Complainant i.e. CW-1 is not an illiterate person and is CC No. 287/13 Raj Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta ..6..
running a banquet hall. CW-1 also admits that he had seen the fard of the property mentioned in the present case in the year 2007.
17. In the cross examination CW-1 further stated that his brother Rampal i.e. CW-2 got prepared the aforesaid agreement. He also could not reveal the date when the documents were executed. He also could not recollect the exact date, month and year when the original documents were handed over to him. He also stated that he had taken the original documents from his brother and then filed the same in the Court. The answers given by CW-1, during the course of cross examination are evasive in nature. In the complaint, it is stated by him that he was acquainted with the accused. However, in the cross examination he has stated that he met the accused for the first time in the year 2007. CW-1 also stated in his cross examination that all the exchange of documents regarding the property had taken place between the accused and his brother, meaning thereby, the complainant did not have any role to play, and therefore, is not a competent witness to depose about the alleged forgery.
18. CW-3 in his cross examination was confronted with statement recorded on 28.11.2011 from portion A to A1, where it was recorded that Suresh Kumar had made some alternation in the Khasra number of the plot. In the cross- examination, he stated that whatever he has stated on CC No. 287/13 Raj Kumar Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta ..7..
01.10.2015 was correct and on 01.10.2015 he had stated that he did not remember whether he had stated that any alterations were made in the Khasra number by Suresh Kumar Gupta or not. According to him, he had only signed as a witness. He further admitted that agreement was prepared in both Rajesh and Suresh Gupta. From the perusal of testimony of CW-3 it is clear that he does not support the case of the complainant and has failed to remember that who had made the alterations. He also stated that while the agreement was prepared both the complainant and accused were present. If the agreement was prepared in the presence of both these persons, then by no stretch of imagination the complainant could have agreed or could have signed the documents on which there was an overwriting in the khasra number.
19. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any ground to prima-facie frame charge against accused Suresh Kumar Gupta.
20. Hence, accused Suresh Kumar Gupta is discharged from the case in hand.
21. Put up for furnishing of bail bonds in terms of Section 437- A Cr.P.C on 27.04.2016.
Announced in Open Court
on 23rd day of April, 2016 (ANKUR JAIN)
ACMM (SW) : Dwarka Courts : 23.04.2016