The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled that right of the Investigating Officer for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is not taken away only because the charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. against the accused. Ordinarily though, all the documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the charge- sheet, nonetheless, if for some plausible reasons, all the documents are not filed along with the charge-sheet, this itself, would not invalidate or vitiate the charge-sheet.
If upon the material produced along with the charge-sheet, the Court is satisfied about commission of an offence and thereupon takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is pending or not, qua other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.
Brief Facts:
The present application was filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for bail.
The Complainant alleged that when she was abroad, someone trespassed in a property owned by her. The said property was purchased by her on the basis of registered Power of Attorney.
The Petitioner, known by different names, has been alleged to execute the documents of title in favor of Naresh Kumar Jindal and Subhash Kumar Bansal, who claim ownership of the said property.
The transfer of property in favor of Rakesh Kumar has been claimed on the basis of notarized Power of Attorney while the complainant purchased the property on the basis of registered GPA supported by part payment by way of pay order, which has been verified by the prosecution.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that an incomplete charge-sheet was presented at the time of investigation and as such the Petitioner was liable to be admitted to statutory bail though the same was filed within time on the 90th day.
Contentions of the State:
It was contended that the cheating and forgery was manifest from the documents placed on record, since the petitioner has claimed ownership only on the basis of fabricated notarized documents.
Observations of the Court:
It was opined that merely because the signatures of Narinder Kumar Minocha could not be collected during investigation, did not cast any doubt on the authenticity of registered GPA executed in favour of the complainant, who has been in possession of the property since 1989.
It was also ruled that right of the Investigating Officer for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is not taken away only because the charge-sheet is filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. against the accused. Ordinarily though, all the documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the charge- sheet, nonetheless, if for some plausible reasons, all the documents are not filed along with the charge-sheet, this itself, would not invalidate or vitiate the charge-sheet.
If upon the material produced along with the charge-sheet, the Court is satisfied about commission of an offence and thereupon takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is pending or not, qua other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of the charge-sheet.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Bench accordingly dismissed the application.
Case Title: Oma Ram v. State of GNCTD
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 4210/2023
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Varun Bhati
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Mr. Hemant Gulati,
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
