Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar vs State And Others on 30 January, 2018
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 320/2018
RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. T.R. Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anita Abraham, Addl. PP for the
State with SI Shekhar
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
30.01.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the trial
court discharging the respondents of the alleged offences under Section 415
and 465 of the IPC. The petitioner further impugns the order of the
Revisional Court dated 26.07.2016 dismissing the revision petition filed by
the petitioner against the order dated 28.04.2016 of the trial court.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that one Sh.
Puran Chand was the owner of property bearing No. M-357, Chander
Shekhar Azad Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
3. It is contended that on his death the property was succeeded to by
the petitioner who is the son of the first wife of Sh. Puran Chand and
respondent no. 2 and 3 who are the second wife and son of Sh. Puran
Chand.
4. It is contended that respondent no. 2 Smt. Neena Devi registered a
relinquishment deed in favour of Arun Chauhan, respondent no. 3
relinquishing her entire share in the said property in his favour.
5. It is contended that in the relinquishment deed, she mentioned that
deceased Sh. Puran Chand only left behind respondent no. 2 and 3 as legal
heirs and no other legal heir.
6. The complaint was filed alleging commission of offences under
Sections 465/466/467/468/471/120B/34 of the IPC.
7. Initially vide order dated 20.11.2012, the trial court directed framing
of charges for the offences under Sections 465/467/468/471/120B/34 of the
IPC which was unsuccessfully challenged by way of a revision petition.
Thereafter respondent no. 2 and 3 filed a petition before this Court being
Crl. M.C. 4142/2013, titled as 'Neena & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.'
8. Vide order dated 10.02.2015 a coordinate bench of this Court was of
the view that no offence of forgery was made out, however, remitted the
matter to the trial court to pass an order afresh on charge and to ascertain
whether offence of cheating is made out or not.
9. By the impugned order, the trial court was of the view that
ingredients of Section 415 were not satisfied and accordingly no charge
was framed.
10. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that
ingredients of Section 415 are not satisfied and submits that ingredients of
Section 465 are satisfied and accordingly charge should be framed under
Sections 465/467/468/471/120B/34 of the IPC.
11. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for
petitioner, in as much as, the allegations with regard to offences under
Sections 465/467/468/471/120B/34 of the IPC is concerned, a coordinate
bench of this court, in the earlier round, by order dated 10.02.2015 in Crl.
M.C. 4142/2013 has already returned a finding that no offence of forgery is
made out.
12. I am also in agreement with the view taken by order dated
10.02.2015. It is not the case of the petitioner that the document i.e.
relinquishment deed is a forged or a fabricated document. The only
contention is that the said document contains incorrect fact of ownership.
13. A misrepresentation or incorrect statement in a document would not
render a document as a forged document so as to satisfy the ingredients of
Section 465 of IPC. The first and foremost requirement of Section 465 IPC
is making of a false document. Making of a false document is distinct and
different from recording an incorrect fact in a document. It is no one case
that the Relinquishment Deed has not been executed by the executant (i.e.
Respondent No. 2) or that her signatures on the same are forged or
fabricated.
14. As has been held by order dated 10.02.2015, no offence of forgery is
made out. Even otherwise, the petitioner who was a party to Crl. M.C.
4142/2013 did not impugn the order dated 10.02.2015 wherein the Court
had returned the finding that no offence of forgery was made out.
15. With regard to Section 415, learned counsel for the petitioner
himself conceded that the ingredients of Section 415 are also not satisfied.
16. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders and
find no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Crl. M.A. 1212/2018 (condonation of delay of 295 days in re-filing)
17. Since I have already dismissed the petition on merits, the application
became infructuous. The application is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 30, 2018
'rs'
