Delhi District Court
Sanjay Verma And Another vs . State Cr No. 348/18 on 22 October, 2019
Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY GULATI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
CR No. 348/18
(1) Sh. Sanjay Verma
S/o late Sh. Yashpal Verma
(2) Smt. Sonia Verma
W/o Sh. Sanjay Verma
Both R/o H437, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi. ....... Petitioners
Versus
State ......Respondent
Date of Institution : 05.11.2018
Date of Reserving Judgment : 16.10.2019
Date of Judgment : 22.10.2019
Result: Partly allowed. Page 1 of 14
Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18
JUDGMENT in Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the Order dt. 11.10.2018 passed by the Court of Sh.
Abhishek Kumar, ld.MM05, West, THC, Delhi.
1. The petitioners have assailed the order dt. 11.10.2018 passed by ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide which Charge u/s 420/406/468 IPC read with section 34 IPC was framed against them. Briefly put, both the petitioners were chargesheeted with the allegations that they had been duping people with the promise of procuring UK visas for them and thereby fraudulently inducing them to part with their money. Petitioners stand to each other in the relationship of husband and wife.
2. Specifically, the chargesheet highlighted 2 victims of the petitioners - Om Prakash and Parminder Singh. The FIR no. 284 of 2011 was registered on the complaint of victim Om Prakash who alleged that petitioner no. 2/accused Sonia presented herself to be someone who was working in the UK Embassy and who was capable of procuring a UK visa for him i.e. Om Prakash. Victim claimed to have paid Rs. 2,51,000 in 5 tranches to Ms. Sonia Result: Partly allowed. Page 2 of 14 Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18 towards expectancy of getting a UK Visa. However, Ms. Sonia allegedly misappropriated the amount and also failed to procure any visa. On inquiries being done by the victim, he got to know that Ms. Sonia was not employed in the UK embassy and that she and her husband Sanjay (Petitioner no.1/accused) had been duping people on the pretext of procuring UK visa. The FIR also made a mention of another alleged victim of the petitioners/accused i.e. Rupinder w/o Parminder Singh who also had been allegedly duped by the petitioners with the assurance of getting a visa for his wife and a work visa for himself. Parminder had separately addressed a complaint dt. 2352011to the Additional Commissioner of Police, West district, New Delhi wherein he had highlighted that his wife was suffering from brain tumour and he needed a UK visa to get her treated in UK as her brother who was already in the UK, was interested in getting her treated there. Parminder also claimed that he was asked by Ms. Sonia to pay Rs. 4 lacs for getting the visas out of which he had paid Rs. 3,76,000 but despite the same, no visas were got issued for them by Ms. Sonia.
3. After the registration of FIR, during the course of investigation, Result: Partly allowed. Page 3 of 14 Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18 complainant/victim Om Prakash and victim Parminder handed over certain documents to the Investigating Officer which form the basis for framing of Charge u/s 468 IPC read with section 34 IPC as well as under section 420/406 IPC. The documents handed over by Om Parkash were - (i) a photocopy of a receipt of Rs. 2,51,000/ dt. 24.12.2008, purportedly signed by Petitioner no. 2 Sonia and (ii) a Cheque of Rs. 62000, also purportedly signed by Petitioner no. 2 Sonia but without any date and without the name of drawee/bearer. The Cheque however had been issued from the AXIS bank account of Sonia enterprises bearing a/c no. 079010200024541. What is interesting to note is that Petitioner no. 2 Sonia has no connection with the account of Sonia Enterprises at all. This account was opened on 10.10.2008 and was closed on 15.3.2018. The police investigation has not been able to connect petitioner no. 2 with either the actual account holder who happens to be one Sandeep Kumar, or with Sonia Enterprises which was a sole proprietorship of Sandeep Kumar, as per the documents of account opening in Axis Bank. In so far as the 2 nd document handed over by Om Parkash is concerned i.e. photocopy of receipt dt. 24.12.2008, the FSL report has confirmed that the signature of Sonia appearing on Result: Partly allowed. Page 4 of 14 Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18 the photocopy of Receipt has been superimposed visavis the Questioned signature Q 4 (appearing on the cheque of Rs. 62000 which was allegedly handed over by Petitioner Sonia to the Complainant) by the process of photocopy. What is even more relevant is that despite taking specimen signatures of Petitioner Sonia and forensic comparison with the admitted signatures of petitioner Sonia, the FSL has not been able to confirm that the signature appearing on the Cheque of Rs. 62000 is that of Petitioner no. 2 Sonia.
4. The documents supplied by victim Parminder were - a cheque of Rs.1,6000000 (one crore sixty lacs) purportedly signed by petitioner no. 2 Sonia which also neither bears any date nor the name of the drawee, issued from ICICI Bank a/c number 092901500008 held by one Manjeet, and photocopy of a promissory note dt. 14.9.2009 of Rs. 4 lacs also purportedly issued by petitioner/accused Sonia in favour of victim Parminder Singh i.e. the promissory note allegedly bears the signature of petitioner/accused Sonia at 4 points. Much like Om Prakash, when he alleged that original receipt dated 24.12.2008 was taken back by Result: Partly allowed. Page 5 of 14 Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18 Petitioner Sonia, Parminder also alleged that the original promissory note was taken back by Sonia by playing fraud. However, petitioner Sonia could not be connected to even the 2 nd account (of ICICI Bank) as the same is in the name of Manjeet, who appears to be an associate of Sandeep Kumar, the holder of the Axis bank account. The account opening documents of both the bank accounts reveal a common mobile number i.e. 9899767325 and a common address i.e. plot no. 111 A, Anandpur Dham. However, neither Sandeep Kumar nor his wife Manjeet are traceable. The judicial record reveals statements of Narender Singh and Dinesh Mahto who alleged that both of them are untraceable after having entered into a transaction with them in respect of Flat no. 129, Ground Floor, LIG Pocket 4, sector A - 10, Narela and property no. 111 A, Anandpur Dham Investigation has not been able to show any sort of connection between the petitioners and Sandeep and Manjeet. Pertinent to highlight that the promissory note and the cheque of Rs. 1,60,00,000/ were also sent for forensic examination by the investigating officer but the FSL report could not confirm whether the signatures appearing on the 2 nd cheque (issued from ICICI Bank) and the Pronote was actually signed by Result: Partly allowed. Page 6 of 14 Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18 petitioner/accused Sonia.
5. At this stage, it also needs highlight that the victims have no proof of having handed over the claimed amount to Petitioner no. 2. Complainant Om Prakash handed over to the Investigating Officer, the photocopy of a receipt purportedly signed by Petitioner no. 2/accused Sonia and claimed that the original receipt was taken back by Sonia and torn when she handed over the cheque of Rs. 62000. It is not understandable as to why did Om Prakash handed back the original receipt of Rs. 251000 in lieu of a cheque of Rs. 62000 without even getting the cheque encashed. In the initial complaint filed by complainant Om Prakash to the Additional Commissioner of Police, West district, New Delhi, he does not anywhere state that accused Sonia gave any receipt of the amount of Rs. 2,51,000. In his statement which was recorded on 21.8.2011 by SI Rajiv Gulati on the basis of which FIR was registered, he mentioned about the Receipt but nothing about the cheque. Subsequently on 31.10.2011, he produced a photocopy of the Receipt purportedly signed by accused Sonia. The case of victim Parminder is even more intriguing. He claims to have handed over Result: Partly allowed. Page 7 of 14 Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18 Rs. 3,76,000 to accused Sonia for procuring UK visas for himself and his wife but in return, accused Sonia is said to have handed over a cheque of Rs. 160,00000!! There is just no explanation in the Chargesheet as to why would Sonia give a cheque of such a huge amount when allegedly all that she had taken from Parminder was Rs. 376000 (Three lacs and seventysix thousand). This explanation should have been sought by the IO from Parminder Singh but the chargesheet is silent on this aspect. Parminder Singh also produced photocopy of Pronote allegedly signed by Sonia, on 31.10.2011 before the IO.
6. There is no proof that either Om Prakash or Parminder ever presented the cheques for clearance. The cheque allegedly issued to Parminder neither bears the name of any drawee nor the date which means that there is no proof that this cheque was specifically handed by accused Sonia to Parminder. Same is the case in regard to the cheque issued to complainant Om Prakash. It has already been mentioned above that the FSL report regarding the cheque issued to Parminder is also inconclusive as to whether the same bears the signature of accused Sonia.
Result: Partly allowed. Page 8 of 14Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18
7. It also needs a highlight that victim Parminder claims to have been duped only by Sonia whereas Om Prakash in his complaint only alleges that Petitioner/accused Sanjay is handinglove with his wife in duping people. There is no allegation qua any fraudulent inducement having been given by Petitioner Sanjay specifically to Parminder. Those allegations are only qua Petitioner Sonia. At a later stage though, both victims gave their supplementary statements to the effect that petitioner Sanjay was always present with petitioner Sonia whenever she met them. These supp. Statements were recorded on 24.3.2012.
8. As per the list of witnesses filed along with the chargesheet, there is only 1 public witness who is supporting the prosecution allegation that accused Sonia and her husband presented themselves to be able to procure UK visas but even this witness gave his statement only qua victim Parminder Singh. Rest of the public witnesses (except the victims themselves), do not in any way, in their respective statements recorded u/s 161 of the Cr. PC, implicate the Petitioners in the alleged offences.
Result: Partly allowed. Page 9 of 14Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18
9. In this backdrop, even assuming that the prosecution can bring in oral evidence to prove the offence of cheating (i.e. fraudulently inducing the complainant and victim to part with valuable security) and criminal misappropriation, it is not understandable as to how could Charge u/s 468 IPC be framed against the petitioners. The photocopy of Receipt dt. 24.12.2008 was produced by complainant Om Prakash and the FSL report in regard to this Receipt is very categorical that the signature of Sonia on the copy of receipt has been superimposed by the process of photocopy after taking the same from the Cheque (issued from Axis Bank) which Cheque was also in the possession of Om Prakash. Thus, if at all there has been a forgery, the same appears to have been done by Complainant Om Prakash when he produced the photocopy of receipt before the investigating officer with the story that the original receipt was taken away by accused Sonia. Prima facie it is Om Prakash who used the Cheque of Rs. 62,000 in his possession and which purportedly bore the signatures of accused Sonia to use the signatures of Sonia appearing on the cheque in his possession and paste them on the alleged photocopy of the receipt so as to Result: Partly allowed. Page 10 of 14 Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18 create evidence of handing over money to accused Sonia. Petitioner/accused Sonia cannot possibly be charged with forging her own signatures. Further, there is neither any allegation in the chargesheet nor any evidence on record to even suggest that either of the Petitioners procured the cheque books of the 2 accounts in question (AXIS Bank and ICICI Bank) and then misused those cheques by forging the signatures of actual account holders.
10. Even if the promissory note allegedly issued by accused Sonia to victim Parminder had been proved by the FSL to have been actually issued by Sonia, same would have at best been corroborating evidence that Parminder was entitled to recover Rs. 4 lacs from accused Sonia. However, nonconfirmation of Sonia's signature on the cheque and promissory note cannot by any stretch of logic form the basis for framing Charge under section 468 IPC. It may also be highlighted that chargesheet doesn't allege that accused Sonia or accused Sanjay tried to forge signatures of the original account holders from which the 2 cheques were issued respectively. Had the FSL report confirmed the signatures appearing on the 2 cheques to be those of petitioner Sonia, there Result: Partly allowed. Page 11 of 14 Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18 would have been a good ground to proceed against her u/s 468 IPC.
11. In concluding analysis, this Court is of the understanding that even in the absence of any evidence to connect petitioners/accused Sanjay and Sonia with the bank accounts from which 2 cheques were purportedly issued to complainant Om Prakash and victim Parminder respectively, the prosecution may still prove the Charge of 'cheating' and criminal misappropriation by relying on oral evidence. However, for the Charge under section 468 IPC, the evidence on record rather indicates forgery by complainant Om Prakash and this aspect needs to be investigated. There is no evidence to connect the alleged forgery with either of the petitioners and hence the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer fails to pass the test of 'Grave Suspicion' which is required to frame a Charge. Consequently, both the petitioners are discharged for the Charge framed under section 468 IPC read with section 34 IPC. However, they shall face trial for the Charge u/s 420 and 406 read with section 34 of the IPC.
Result: Partly allowed. Page 12 of 14Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18
12. As a post script, it needs a highlight that the Charge qua fraudulent inducement having been given by the petitioners/ accused to Rupinder Kaur has been incorrectly framed. The Chargesheet and the documents on judicial record only reveal the allegation that it was victim Parminder Singh who was induced by the petitioners for procuring visa for himself and his wife. The Charge under Section 420/406 read with Section 34 IPC thus needs to be amended accordingly.
13. In view of above, the present Revision Petition stands partly allowed. Both the Petitioners stand discharged for the offence punishable u/s 468 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. However, they shall face trial before the ld. Trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 420/406 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
14. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith copy of this Judgment.
Result: Partly allowed. Page 13 of 14Sanjay Verma and another Vs. State CR No. 348/18
15. After due compliance, Revision Petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court. (AJAY GULATI)
Dated: 22.10.2019 ASJ05(West)Delhi
Digitally
signed by
AJAY
AJAY GULATI
GULATI Date:
2019.10.23
11:46:39
+0530
Result: Partly allowed. Page 14 of 14