Kalawati @ Chander Kala vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1393 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 06, 2015
                         DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 18, 2015

+             CRL.M.C. 957/2013 & Crl.M.A.3019/2013 (Stay)

       KALAWATI @ CHANDER KALA
                                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through : Mr.P.N.Dhar, Advocate.

                         versus

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
                                                     ..... Respondents
                         Through : Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP.
                                   Mr.Jawahar Chawla, Advocate for
                                   R-2 and 3.
                                   ASI Dharampal Singh, PS Keshav
                                   Puram.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The petitioner-Kalawati @ Chander Kala has filed the

present petition under Section 482 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to set

aside order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the learned ASJ-1, Outer Rohini,

Delhi by which the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were discharged. The petition

is contested by them.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record. The FIR was lodged on the directions of the court in

complaint case instituted by the petitioner against Bhim Singh Sharma,

Yogesh Kumar and Latika alleging that Bhim Singh Sharma, her husband,

forged documents regarding the property in question and transferred the

same in the name of Yogesh Kumar and Lalita. After investigation, a

charge-sheet was filed by the police against them along with Bhu Dev

Singh. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed charge against all of

them by an order dated 01.06.2010. The respondent Nos.2 and 3

challenged the order and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the

impugned order dated 21.08.2012 discharged them. Being aggrieved and

dissatisfied, the complainant has filed the present petition. It is relevant to

note that the State did not challenge the discharge.

3. In the complaint case filed in the court under Section 200

Cr.P.C., the petitioner did not level any allegations against the respondents

for their involvement in the crime. During investigation, it revealed that

the respondents were attesting witnesses to certain documents executed by

Bhu Dev Singh in favour of Yogesh Kumar Sharma and Smt.Lalita. It

further transpired that Bhim Singh Sharma, petitioner's husband, had

forged power of attorney and other documents dated 20.09.1980 and had

transferred the property in question in favour of Bhu Dev Singh. Bhu Dev

Singh further transferred the said property in the name of Yogesh Kumar

Sharma and Smt.Lalita. The respondents were only attesting witnesses to

the documents executed by Bhu Dev Singh in favour of Yogesh Kumar

Sharma and Lalita. There is nothing on record to show if they had

conspired with Bhim Singh Sharma or Bhu Dev Singh to forge and

fabricate the documents to transfer the property in question in favour of

Yogesh Kumar Sharma and Lalita. Apparently, they are not the

beneficiary. Undisputedly, they are related to Yogesh Kumar Sharma and

Lalita. Under these circumstances, putting signatures as attesting

witnesses simplicitor on certain documents, is not enough to infer their

conspiracy in the transaction. The learned Sessions Judge has noted that

the attesting witnesses to the forged General Power of Attorney dated

20.09.1980 were not arrayed as accused. Similarly other attesting

witnesses i.e.Radhey Sham Sharma and Prem Chand Sharma were not

implicated. There were no allegations if the documents executed by Bhu

Dev Singh in favour of Yogesh Kumar Sharma and Lalita were forged or

fabricated. As per the complainant/petitioner, her husband Bhim Singh

Sharma forged power of attorney dated 20.09.1980 and other documents

to transfer the property in question. The said forged power of attorney

was used to execute certain documents in favour of Bhu Dev Singh to

which the respondents were not party.

4. The Trial Court has considered all the relevant contention of

the petitioner and did not find any material to proceed against them. The

impugned order is based upon fair appreciation of the evidence collected

on record and warrants no interference.

5. The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

6. Trial court record (if any) be sent back along with a copy of

this order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 18, 2015 sa