* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: October 25, 2010
Date of Order: December 15, 2010
+ Crl. MC No.445/2009
% 15.12.2010
Sunil Guglani & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
State & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsels:
Mr. Manish Gandhi for petitioners.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent
Mr. Ruchir Batra with Ms. Anita Tiwari for R-2
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners assailing an order dated 10th November 2008 passed by learned MM summoning the petitioners herein as accused persons under Sections 346/468/471/474/120B/ 420 IPC observing that the complainant has shown prima facie that these offences were committed by the petitioners/ accused persons.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent no.2 filed a complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of an FIR under Section 420/463//468/471/474 read with Section 120B alleging therein that the petitioners herein had fabricated a notice purported to have been Crl.MC 445/2009 Page 1 Of 4 issued by respondent no.2 whereunder it was shown that the respondent had offered petitioners to purchase the property of the company valued several crore of rupees for a meager amount of Rs.30 lac and this forged notice was filed by the petitioners in a pending suit along wit h a written statement in the court of learned ADJ. After coming to know of the forged notice, complainant engaged services of a handwriting expert and obtained his opinion who opined that the signatures on the notice had been fabricated with the help of a scanner and a computer. The learned MM did not consider it appropriate to get an FIR registered and instead asked the complainant to lead evidence in the court. The complainant led evidence by way of examining himself and the handwriting expert. The evidence of handwriting expert is to the extent that the alleged notice was a fabricated document since the signatures on the alleged notice were scanned with the help of a scanner and a computer and they were not the original signatures of respondent no.2 and the complainant in his testimony testified that this notice was fabricated in order to play fraud and fabricated notice was placed on the court record in the suit filed before Shri Lal Singh, ADJ along with written statement. The forged notice dated 16th November 2005 was not issued by him and was a document created by the accused persons/petitioners in collusion with some known computer professionals with a motive to grab the property of the company.
3. Offence under Section 420 IPC essentially involves inducement to the deceived person to deliver a property to a person or to make or destroy a valuable security or something which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. It is obvious that none of the ingredients of Section 420 IPC could be made out from the testimony of complainant and handwriting expert.
Crl.MC 445/2009 Page 2 Of 4 Section 463 IPC defines forgery and Section 468 prescribed punishment for forgery of a valuable security or a Will or an authority to adopt a son or a power of attorney entitling a person to transfer valuable security etc. The purported notice offering to sell the property cannot be considered as a valuable security. I therefore consider that ingredients of Section 468 were not satisfied.
4. Offence under Section 471 IPC comprises of using a forged document or electronic record as genuine and Section 474 IPC comprises having possession of forged documents with the intention to use it as genuine. Since in the present case, the alleged forged documents had already been used, thus the offence under Section 474 IPC of intending to use could not arise and the only offence made out from the evidence of complainant and hand writing expert was under 471 IPC. I, therefore, consider that the learned MM while passing order dated 10th November 2008 ought not have summoned the accused / present petitioners under Section 346 (which seems to be a typographical error and instead of 463, 346 seems to have been typed) 468, 474, 120B and 420. Section 120B IPC is also not made out because the complainant had not disclosed ingredients of conspiracy. The complainant in his testimony simply stated that after filing of complaint it came to his knowledge that Sarvesh Mahajan, Mukul Mahajan, Ms. Kavita Mahajan and D.K. Gupta were also involved in conspiracy as they were also parties to Suit No.1261 of 2006. I consider that somebody cannot be summoned for conspiracy on such a statement. If summoning is done on such casual statement then a complainant can name any number of persons and get them summoned to the Court only on the basis of a bare statement that so and so are involved in a criminal conspiracy. The only offence disclosed from evidence is Section 471 IPC and the petitioners should have been summoned Crl.MC 445/2009 Page 3 Of 4 only under Section 471 IPC. The petition is allowed to that extent.
5. In the result, the order dated 10th November 2008 of learned MM as against Sarvesh Mahajan, Mukul Mahajan, Ms. Kavita Mahajan and D.K. Gupta is hereby quashed. The order of summoning qua other petitioners is restricted only to offence under Section 471 IPC only.
6. The petition stands disposed of.
December 15, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd Crl.MC 445/2009 Page 4 Of 4