Narinder Kumar Sikka vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2016 Latest Caselaw 5728 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    +    CRL.REVISION No.475/2015

                                             Date of Decision:September 01, 2016

         NARINDER KUMAR SIKKA                                      ..... Petitioner

                          Through            Mr.Deepak Gandhi, Adv.

                          versus

         STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                   ...... Respondents
                          Through            Mr.G.M.Farooqui, APP.


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

         P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under

Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of the order on charge dated 27.05.2015 passed by

the learned CMM, New Delhi in FIR No.101/2005 registered

under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC, PS: Special Cell, Lodhi

Colony, New Delhi.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on

30.06.2005 a complaint was made by Ms.Sumita Mukherji,

Assistant to Police Liaison Officer, German Embassy, with the

police where it was alleged that the petitioner had presented an

invitation letter from a German company namely TRIMET

Handells GMBH and upon verification, it was found that the

address and telephone number of the said company given in

the invitation letter were fake as the actual company with the

name of TEMIE Handel AG is located at Heinrichstr, 155

40239 Dusseldorf in Germany. In a telephonic verification,

Mr. Heinrich of the said company confirmed that there was no

person on their rolls with the name of Schneide/Schnelder and

that the petitioner was not known to them. On the basis of the

same, the present FIR was registered regarding the fact that the

accused Tarun Sikka had come to the German Embassy to

collect a passport and visa for his cousin Narender Kumar at

German Embassy on the basis of forged/fake invitation letter.

It was thus apparent that the petitioner had presented a letter of

invitiation purported to have been received from a company in

Germany for business transactions.

3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, after hearing the

learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that though the offence complained of had not been

accomplished, prima facie, there was sufficient incriminating

ingredient warranting framing of charge under Sections

420/511, 468/511 and 471/511 IPC against the

petitioner/Narender Kumar. Accordingly, charge was framed

against the petitioner/Narender Kumar. Hence, the present

petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

petition has taken the grounds in the petition that the Trial

Court has refused to consider the evidence collected by the

Investigating Officer during further investigation, as prayed by

the petitioner in his application dated 26.01.2011; that the

German Embassy who are the complainants in this case, have

confirmed the authenticity and truthfulness of the order passed

by the German Court on 11.02.2014 against Ran Aloofi and

thus proceeding with trial is a sheer wastage of judicial time of

the court; that the letter of invitation dated 16.06.2005 sent by

the customer through his company, which is allegedly forged

and fabricated from the contents of the letter itself, makes it

clear that he was a new customer and the petitioner was not

having any prior acquaintance with him. Moreover, the said

letter is neither addressed to German Embassy nor is there any

recommendation in the same for issuance of visa to the

petitioner. Even on the basis of the business profile and

financial credentials, the petitioner was entitled to the visa for

the business purposes. There was no question or a compelling

requirement for the petitioner in getting such a letter fabricated

because even without the support of such a letter, there was no

hindrance in issuance of visa to the petitioner; that the sender

of the letter himself confessed before the court of law in

Germany that wrong letter of invitation was sent by him (Ran

Aloofi) and he has been suitably penalized by the court in

Germany; that the letter received by the petitioner was a

business invitation from the customer Ran Aloofi for

promotion of business only and there was neither any mens rea

on the part of the petitioner nor Mr. Aloofi was earlier known

to the petitioner nor the petitioner was aware of his business

address or phone numbers; that the petitioner attached the

letter in a routine manner on bona fide belief presuming it to

be true and genuine; that the petitioner had no control or even

reason to disbelieve the correctness of the letter received by

him; that no offence of cheating, forgery and using a forged

document knowing and having reason to believe that the same

was forged, is made out from the charge sheet; that the

petitioner is a reputed manufacturer/exporter of vinyl products

and had valid visa for many other countries including UK on

the basis of his valid credentials and that the forgery of the

disputed document is also not attributed to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has submitted

that the petitioner had cheated the complainant for the purpose

of getting issued visa for himself on the basis of a fake

invitation letter.

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

perused the record.

7. This court has time and again pointed out that at the time

of framing of charge, the court should not enter upon a process

of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility.

The limited exercise during that stage is to find out whether the

material offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence

is sufficient for the court to proceed further in the matter and

while doing so, there is a ground to presume that the accused

has committed an offence, then the court shall frame charge

under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, there is a

fake invitation letter which has been tendered on behalf of the

petitioner for obtaining the German Visa purported to have

been issued by a German company namely TRIMET Handells

GMBH which on verification was found to be false inasmuch

as the address and telephone numbers given on the invitation

letter were fake as the actual company with the name of

TEMIE Handel AG is located at Heinrichstr, 155 40239

Dusseldorf in Germany and in a telephonic verification, Mr.

Heinrich of the said company confirmed that there was no

person on their rolls with the name of Schneide/Schnelder and

that the petitioner was not known to them. Thus, prima facie,

there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against

the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any

infirmity or illegality with the impugned order dated

27.05.2015 so as to call for interference by this court.

9. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 01, 2016 dm/dd