Delhi High Court
Smt. Shashi Gupta & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 27 November, 2018
$~22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 27th November, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 5940/2018 and Crl.M.A.48033-48036/2018
SMT. SHASHI GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shesh Datt Sharma, Adv.
Versus
STATE & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the criminal complaint (CC No.58769/16) of the second
respondent (complainant) the metropolitan magistrate held pre-
summoning inquiry in the course of which several witnesses were
examined including the complainant appearing as CW-1. The
metropolitan magistrate, by her order dated 16.11.2017, short shrifted
the issue by observing that the dispute was civil in nature and no
cognizable offence had been disclosed, thereby dismissing the
complaint.
2. The second respondent (complainant) challenged the said order
in the court of sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by petition
(Crl.Rev.No.2/2018). The revisional court allowed the petition, by its
order dated 19.03.2018, and found that sufficient evidence had been
adduced in the pre-summoning inquiry to proceed against the
petitioners herein and the third respondent in these proceedings, for
they to be summoned as accused for offences punishable under
Sections 468/471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC). The revisional court, by its order dated 19.03.2018, thus,
directed the metropolitan magistrate to proceed further in light of the
said observations, in accordance with law.
3. The present petition has been filed invoking section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to bring a challenge to the
order of the revisional court.
4. The prime allegations of the complainant in the aforementioned
case, as supported by the evidence which was led in the pre-
summoning inquiry have been taken note of by the revisional court in
the impugned order as under:-
"6. On perusal of complaint and testimony of CW-1, I
find that the fact related to death of husband of
petitioner/complainant has been established, though,
there is some discrepancy regarding his exact date of
death. In the complaint, date of death is mentioned as
18.02.2013. Though, in the testimony, it was mentioned
as 18.02.2014. On the other hand, death certificate
proved by complainant as CW-1/1 mentions date of death
of her husband as 19.02.2013. However, these
discrepancies not so material, so as to go into roots of the
case. The material fact is that husband of petitioner i.e.
Satish Jain expired either on 18 or 19.02.2013.
Petitioner also placed photocopy of agreement with Mr.
Bakey Lal and this agreement shows that it was executed
between Bakey Lal and complainant on or after
13.07.2013. On the other hand, copy of NOC shown to be
executed by Mr. Satish Jain i.e. Mark C, shows that it was
prepared on E-stamp paper purchased on 12.05.2014. In
this stamp paper, name of Mr. Satish Jain was shown as
first party and name of Sashi (accused no.1) was shown
as second party. CW-4 had produced record from BSES.
He proved copy of bill in the name of accused no.1 and
other documents of the same file (22 pages) as CW-5/1.
The other documents in the file were in the nature of
application form to obtain electricity connection with
supporting documents and the supporting documents
included NOC on E-stamp paper dated 12.05.2014,
purportedly given by Mr. Satish Jain. It is also worth to
see that there is another document on E-stamp paper i.e.
an indemnity bond furnished by accused no.1 and this E-
stamp paper was also taken on 12.05.2014 with a gap of
two minutes only from the time when E-stamp paper for
NOC was purchased. Thus, it is well apparent that the
NOC purportedly issued by Mr. Satish Jain (deceased
husband of complainant/petitioner) was prepared on
12.05.2014, when apparently, Mr. Satish Jain was not
alive or this NOC was at least shown to be executed on
12.05.2014, in order to furnish the same to BSES for the
purpose of obtaining electricity connection in the name of
accused no.1. In these circumstances, I do find that a
very strong prima facie circumstance appears to show
that this NOC was forged, so as to be shown to be
executed by Mr. Satish Jain on 12.05.2014.
7. Apparently, this document was used for the
purpose of obtaining electricity connection, which is a
valuable property. With such act of obtaining electricity
connection on the basis of alleged NOC, a right/interest
was also shown to be created in favour of accused no.1
as against the right/interest/title of complainant. Thus,
besides BSES, even complainant was at the suffering end.
Apparently, there was a deception against officials of
BSES to show that NOC was genuine and to show that
accused had fulfilled all criteria to obtain electricity
connection for 2nd floor of this property. The consequent
loss was to be suffered by complainant (as mentioned
herein above). Therefore, I do find that ingredients of
offence u/s. 468 and 471 IPC are prima facie established
on the record.
8. Now the question is that whether accused no.1 to
accused no.4 are connected with such offence. Accused
no.1 is apparently beneficiary of such electricity
connection, as the connection was obtained in her name.
Accused no.2 to accused no.4 are sons of accused no.1
and they are also indirectly beneficiary of this
connection. In the background of such circumstance, the
allegations made by complainant become material,
wherein she alleged that accused no.1 to accused no.4
assured the complainant to get her house vacated from
Keshav, Deepak, Manjeet and Sanjeev and later on, on
06.03.2016, all four of them extended threat to the
complainant claiming that the flat occupied by Keshav,
Deepak, Manjeet and Sanjeev belonged to them and if she
demanded to vacate the same, then she alognwith her
family members would be eliminated. Thus, accused no.1
to accused no.4 had been claiming their title over 2 nd
floor of this property. Somewhere aforesaid circumstance
indicate knowledge on the part of accused no.2 to
accused no.4 regarding the electricity connection being
taken in the name of accused no.1. Such knowledge gives
rise to a suspicion against them being involved in this
conspiracy to use forged NOC to obtain electricity
connection."
5. The revisional court had issued notice to the petitioners and to
the third respondent herein while entertaining the petition of the
complainant challenging the order dated 16.11.2017. The arguments,
raised on their behalf, as noted above, were rejected by the revisional
court with observation that the same were in the nature of defence plea
that will have to be considered at the trial. The fact that the NOC was
apparently forged, it bearing a date on which the executant Satish Jain
was not alive, it having been used for and on behalf of the petitioners
to obtain an electricity connection for the subject premises, the
allegations of the complainant call for criminal action, sufficient
grounds having been found on record to proceed against the
petitioners and the third respondent.
6. There is no error or infirmity in the view taken by the revision
court. The petition is, thus, dismissed in limine.
7. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
vk
