Mukesh Sharma vs State Of Delhi
2007 Latest Caselaw 525 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The petitioner challenges an order on charge dated 24.8.2006 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed framing of charges under Section 120B/419/420/465/467/468/471 IPC.

2. The FIR, lodged in 2004 by one Manoj Goyal alleged that pursuant to a transaction, a plot was purchased on 19.3.2002. The vendor was allegedly one Gurbachan Lal. The further allegations in the FIR were that the petitioner, had been disclosed as a general power of attorney/special power of attorney holder, of the owner of the plot. The documents find mention in the sale deed registered by the vendor in favor of the purchaser Manoj Goyal. The FIR further alleged that in 2004, the complainant discovered that multi-storeyed flats had come up on the plot and, upon enquiry it was revealed that the plot was owned by someone else; he was victim of impersonation.

3. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a victim in the entire episode. He submitted that he had entered into a transaction in 2001 pursuant to which the owner had agreed to sell the plot. However, when he became suspicious, he lodged an FIR in 2001 with the authorities at Noida. Learned Counsel relied upon a copy of the said document. He also relied upon the further fact that the document in question (the registered deed said to have been executed by impersonator, Devki Nandan) specifically mentioned about the role of Mukesh Sharma as a GPA holder and that the said document was surrendered and cancelled. In these circumstances it was claimed that the petitioner had no role and could not have been charged.

4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the ingredients to make out an offence under Section 419/467/468/471 were absent. It was submitted that the petitioner never impersonated the owner, the allegations that he committed any acts of forgery falsification of documents, could not have been fastened on him.

5. Learned Counsel for the State relied upon the charge sheet and submitted that during the course of investigation it transpired that the accused/ impersonator Devki Nandan had opened an account; the petitioner introduced him to the bank. It was also claimed that a substantial amount ofRs. 10 lacs was withdrawn from that account. The said account stood closed on 23.10.2002. Counsel contended that the entire fraud was played with the active connivance and participation of the petitioner and that there is no infirmity with the order on charge, in so far as it pertains to the four offences. Counsel contended that the framing of charge under Section 120B, was sufficient in so far as the petitioner is concerned as it implicated his role as a facilitator, and possible beneficiary of the offences relating to forgery.

6. The relevant part of the charge sheet is as follows:

S.M. Sharma examined the complainant Sh. Manoj Goyal in detail, who deposed that he was in search of a property in South Delhi and Mukesh Sharma induced him that there is a good property bearing No. M-28 Greater Kailash-II, Market, New Delhi and he can get it in cheaper rates. Accused Mukesh Sharma assured the complainant that he himself will also be a partner in purchasing the said property. This induced Manoj Goyal (complainant), but he insisted accused Mukesh Sharma that sale deed would be registered in his name, for which accused Mukesh Sharma agreed and finally on 20.3.2002 the sale deed was got registered vide No. 1963, book No. 1, volume No. 2473 on pages 35-52 dt. 20.3.2002. This sale deed also bears the details of payments made by the complainant, at page No. 8 and a site plan is also attached with the sale deed.

Complainant Manoj Goyal stated that accused Mukesh Sharma assured him that the actual owner of the property namely Gurbachan Lal has issued GPA, SPA and Will all dt. 29.10.2001 in his favor and now, he is the owner of the property bearing No. M-28, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, but he doesn't have sufficient money i.e.Rs. 80 lacs, which are to be given to accused Devki Nandan Gautam and this way he induced the complainant Manoj Goyal for payment. The complainant issued three cheques one ofRs. 10 lacs and two cheques ofRs. 5 lacs each and paidRs. 5 lacs in cash. But two cheques ofRs. 5 lacs were stopped by the complainant, meaning thereby that a total sum ofRs. 15 lacs was given by the complainant but when accused Mukesh Sharma did not deliver originals of cancellation of GPA and SPA, it created doubt in the mind of the complainant and once he went to the site and found a building on that land. It confirmed the complainant that he has been cheated by Mukesh Sharma and Devki Nandan Gautam, who sold him property in question i.e. M-28, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. Complainant further informed that Mukesh Sharma gave him certified copies of Cancellation of SPA and GPA both dt. 19.3.2002, but not the originals of these documents, which were shown to be issued by Gurbachan Lal, cancelling the name of Mukesh Sharma as SPA and GPA. During investigation it was found that for getting the certified copies from the office of Sub-Registrar, Mehrauli, accused Mukesh Sharma purchased two non judicial stamp papers in the denomination ofRs. 10/- each from a stamp vendor namely Sudhir Jain, on 10.9.2003, in his name. Stamp vendor Sudhir Jain has also been examined, who has confirmed selling above two NJSPs bearing nos. 30854 and 30855 to Mukesh Sharma S/o Sh. Mishri Lal Sharma.

During investigation another stamp vendor Gianendra Kumar having license No. 548 was also examined, who confirmed selling three NJSPs bearing nos. 24391, 24392 and 24394 in the denomination ofRs. 100/- each, on which cancellations of Will, SPA and GPA have been typed. These NJSPs have been shown to be sold to one Gurbachan Lal R/o H-266/C, Section 12, Pratap Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) on 18.3.2002. This again reveals that accused Devki Nandan Gautam impersonated himself as Gurbachan Lal while purchasing the NJSPs as these documents bear the photographs of accused Devki Nandan Gautam.

Sale deed, Cancellation of SPA, GPA and WILL have been witnessed by Ashok Gupta and one Joginder Singh also. Ashok Gupta has been examined, who accepted his signatures, but Joginder Singh is not traceable on the address mentioned. Reply from the office of Treasurer, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was received, which reveals that NJSPs ofRs. 3.25 Lacs issued vide serial No. 54690 dt. 16.3.02 were purchased by M/s M.K. Plantation (P) Ltd. through its Director, Manoj Goyal for the purposes of sale deed. The extract of delivery register corroborates the same.

To know about the details of the cheques of payment correspondence was made with Corporation Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, in which there is an a/c of M/s M.K.Plantation (P) Ltd. through which Manoj Goyal issued cheques ofRs. 10 Lacs in the name of Gurbachan Lal believing him as actual owner and the said amount was credited into the a/c of Gurbachan Lal bearing a/c No. SB 36862 on 11.3.02, maintained at UCO Bank, Section 3, Noida (UP) and interestingly, this a/c was introduced by Mukesh Sharma, who was already having an a/c No. 9754, maintained in the same bank, this a/c was got opened by accused Mukesh Sharma on 5.03.99 which confirms the disclosure statement of accused Devki Nandan Gautam that this a/c was got opened by Mukesh Sharma on 9.03.02. On 13.3.02, Gurbachan Lal i.e. accused Devki Nandan Gautam issued the cheque No. 376301 in the name of Mukesh Sharma ofRs. 10 Lacs. This cheque was credited vide transfer entry on the same day into the a/c of Mukesh Sharma after confirming the signatures of said Gurbachan Lal (Accused Devkinandan Gautam), which shows that whole of the amount was received by Mukesh Sharma. The a/c of accused Gurbachan Lal stand closed on 27.03.02, which confirms that this a/c was opened only to cheat the innocent complainant. The a/c opening form, specimen signatures card, Form 16, cheque, statement of a/c of Gurbachan Lal and some documents of a/c of Mukesh Sharma were taken into police possession. Statement of a/c of accused Mukesh Sharma confirms the credit and debit entry ofRs. 10 Lacs into his a/c. Accused Mukesh Sharma withdrew this money in a great haste this is clear from the statement of account. This proves that both the accused persons acted hand in glove to cheat the innocent complainant Sh. Manoj Goyal.

7. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that the previous transaction (GPA, etc.)finds mention and therefore there is a strong pointer to his absence of any intention at the face of it finds attractive. However, the FIR as well as the charge sheet, point to a deeper role by him. The petitioner apparently introduced the alleged impersonator namely Devki Nandan to the vendee as Gurbachan Lal; he was made to part with valuable consideration. He also introduced the said impersonator to the bank as Gurbachan Lal. Therefore, there is sufficient prima facie material indicative of the petitioner's involvement warranting framing of the charges as done by the trial court. As far as the contention that he could not have been charged with Section 467 and 468 since no specific or overt role of the accused in relation of the forgery is concerned, the charge here is not of forgery but of a conspiracy to commit that offence, under Section 120B(1).

8. Having considered the entirety of the charge sheet and the materials existing on record, I am satisfied that no infirmity can be found with the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that nothing stated in the course of this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case; all rights and defenses of the petitioner are kept open.