Sunil Guglani & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5719 Del

         *        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