Delhi High Court
Babu Lal vs State & Ors on 7 January, 2015
Author: A. K. Pathak
$~39 & 40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 808/2014
Decided on 7th January, 2015
BABU LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Jha Kamal, Adv.
Versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Standing
Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Charu Dalal,
Adv. along with IO ASI Jagpal, P.S.
DIU West Distt.
Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv. for R-2 &
R-3.
AND
W.P.(CRL) 874/2014
RAGHUNATH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Jha Kamal, Adv.
Versus
THE STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Addl. Standing
Counsel with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv.
along with ASI Jagpal Singh, DIU
West Distt.
Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv. for R-2 &
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL)
1. Both the writ petitions arise from the same FIR, thus, are disposed of
WP(CRL)808/2014 Page 1 of 7
together by this common order.
2. By way of present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), petitioners have challenged the order dated 30 th
November, 2012 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby cognizance of
offences in the FIR No.426/2009 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC
registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar has been taken.
3. FIR was registered pursuant to the directions of the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the complaint of Suresh
Kumar and his brother Ramesh Kumar. It was alleged in the FIR that
complainant had purchased a property bearing no. B-2/39, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi on 3rd December, 1981 from the petitioners vide General Power of
Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will etc., all dated
3rd December, 1981. Documents were executed by petitioner-Raghu Nath
Singh in favour of the complainant. Property was purchased against
consideration, inasmuch as, payment was acknowledged by way of a
registered receipt. Even after the sale, petitioner-Babu Lal continued to
occupy the suit property. Later on, petitioner-Babu Lal applied to Delhi
Development Authority (DDA) for conversion of the property from lease
WP(CRL)808/2014 Page 2 of 7
hold to free hold in his name vide forged and fabricated documents, that is,
Agreement to Sell, Special Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney,
Affidavits.
4. Investigation was conducted wherein statements of complainant and
other witnesses were recorded. Documents were handed over by the
complainant to the Investigating Officer. Complainant alleged that
petitioner-Babu Lal had inserted his name in place of complainant-Ramesh
Kumar in the Agreement to Sell dated 3rd December, 1981 and applied for
conversion of the property form lease hold to free hold. It was further stated
that on 24th March, 2009 petitioner-Raghu Nath Singh, who was initial
owner of the property, had made a declaration in favour of complainant-
Ramesh Kumar regarding execution of Agreement to Sell dated 3 rd
December, 1981 and also that he had received `45,000/- as sale
consideration from Ramesh Kumar in respect of the property ad measuring
125 sq yards vide receipt registered as document no. 9541, book no. IV
Volume no. 849 on page no. 161 dated 3 rd December, 1981 before the Sub-
Registrar Delhi, inasmuch as, had executed duly notarized Agreement to
Sell dated 3rd December, 1981in favour of Ramesh Kumar. It may be noted
here that during the investigation, Babu Lal was asked to produce original
WP(CRL)808/2014 Page 3 of 7
documents including Agreement to Sell dated 3rd December, 1981 but he
failed to produce the same. It is further revealed that two General Power of
Attorney and three Special Power of Attorney were executed by the
petitioner-Raghu Nath Singh in favour of petitioner-Babu Lal, out of which
one General Power of Attorney was an unregistered document while other
General of Power of Attorney was duly registered in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Noida, (U.P.). One Will and Receipt dated 3 rd December, 1981
executed by petitioner-Raghu Nath Singh in favour of complainant-Ramesh
Kumar were found registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate.
Agreement to Sell was not found registered. Investigating Officer also
collected documents pertaining to the property in question from the Delhi
Development Authority, which included Agreement to Sell dated 3 rd
December, 1981. These documents were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL), Rohini on 8th April, 2011 and its report was obtained on
13th March, 2012, according to which alterations were made and some
erasing were noticed on the documents. Charge-sheet was then filed in the
court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi who has taken cognizance of the
offence vide the order impugned in these petitions filed after about two
years.
WP(CRL)808/2014 Page 4 of 7
5. It may be pointed out here that case is listed before the Metropolitan
Magistrate for arguments on charge on 12th January, 2015.
6. It is trite law that at the time of taking cognizance of the offence in
terms of the charge-sheet, Magistrate has to see as to whether on perusal of
the charge-sheet and the material collected during the investigation discloses
ingredients of offence alleged against the accused. Only a prima facie view
is to be taken based on the statement of complainant and witnesses as also
on perusal of other material collected during the investigation, which have to
be taken on its face value. In this case, statement of complainant
accompanied with FSL report discloses, prima facie, ingredients of offence
alleged. Conduct of petitioners is also not above board. Petitioners failed to
produce documents which they were called upon to produce by the
Investigating Officer. Documents had to be collected by the Investigating
Officer. These documents were later collected from the DDA and sent to
FSL seeking its opinion, according to which there are alterations/erasing
marks on the documents submitted by the petitioners with the DDA.
Statement of the complainant has also to be taken as correct at this stage of
taking cognizance of the charge-sheet wherein specific allegations have been
levelled against the petitioners. In no way, it can be said that sufficient
WP(CRL)808/2014 Page 5 of 7
material was not available before the Magistrate for taking cognizance of the
offence as alleged in the charge-sheet.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that
there was inordinate delay in filing the charge-sheet. FIR was registered in
the year 2009; whereas charge-sheet has been filed in the year 2012. He has
placed reliance on Wasante and Others vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 CRI.
L.J. 419 and R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866. I have
perused these judgments and find the same to be in the context of different
facts. In Wasante (supra), investigation was completed in the year 1971 and
despite this no charge-sheet was filed for about 5 years and in these facts, it
was held that there was unexplained inordinate delay in filing the charge-
sheet. Similarly, judgment of the Supreme Court is also in the context of
different facts. In the present case, I do not find any inordinate delay in
filing the charge-sheet. After registration of FIR in the year 2009,
investigation continued and immediately after conclusion of the
investigation charge-sheet was filed. It has further been mentioned in the
status report that investigation was delayed due to non-cooperation of the
petitioner-Babu Lal, which averment is strengthened from the fact that
petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation and did not supply the
WP(CRL)808/2014 Page 6 of 7
documents despite notices issued by the Investigating Officer and ultimately
said documents had to be obtained from the DDA. That apart, these
documents were sent to FSL for seeking expert opinion which also took
time.
8. For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 07, 2015
ga
