Delhi High Court
Sh. Anil Dutt Sharma vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 8 December, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 08.12.2021
+ CRL.M.C. 3186/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
SH. ANIL DUTT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudeep Dey, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 19661/2021 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3186/2021
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of
the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 04 th February, 2020 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, E-Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi in CRL.(R) No. 55/2019 arising out of FIR No. 377/2009 registered
under Sections 420/34 IPC at P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi, and the order dated 3 rd
June, 2019 passed by the learned ACMM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
in the said FIR. Vide order dated 3rd June, 2019, the petitioner's protest petition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:13.12.2021
13:00:13
filed against the cancellation report was dismissed by the learned ACMM and the
said order was upheld by the learned ASJ vide order dated 4 th February, 2020.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR came to be registered on 22nd
August, 2009 at the instance of the petitioner against his mother Smt. Ved Kumari,
his brothers Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma, Sh. Vijay Dutt Sharma and Sh. Yag Dutt
Sharma, and others, namely Smt. Poonam Sharma (w/o Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma)
and Pramila. In the said FIR, it was alleged that the aforementioned accused
persons had entered into a conspiracy and got transferred one industrial plot
bearing No. 2220, Pocket I, Narela, New Delhi, which was allotted to the
petitioner's father Late Sh. B.D. Sharma, in the name of his mother Smt. Ved
Kumari, by executing a forged and fabricated Will of Late Sh. B.D. Sharma, to
the exclusion of the petitioner and his elder brother Sh. D.D. Sharma. It was
further alleged that besides the aforesaid property, certain shares, bank account
and other properties were also got transferred on the basis of forged documents,
on which forged signatures of Late Sh. B.D. Sharma were appended. The
petitioner had also alleged that Smt. Ved Kumari had filed a false affidavit dated
19th December, 2000 before the DSIIDC, wherein the names of legal heirs of Late
Sh. B.D. Sharma were not properly mentioned, as the names of the petitioner and
his elder brother Sh. D.D. Sharma were deliberately dropped.
During investigation, the aforesaid Will, alongwith admitted signatures of
Late Sh. B.D. Sharma, was sent by the Investigating Officer to FSL. On receipt of
the FSL Report, a cancellation report came to be filed, primarily on the ground
that the signatures on the aforesaid Will were opined to be original. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred a protest petition dated 30th July, 2016, which
was dismissed by the learned ACMM and the cancellation report accepted vide
order dated 3rd June, 2019. A revision petition was filed by the petitioner against
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:13.12.2021
13:00:13
the order of the learned ACMM, but the same also came to be dismissed vide the
impugned order dated 4th February, 2000.
3. Mr. Sudeep Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the
complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner's father Late Sh. B.D. Sharma owned
an industrial plot bearing No. 2220, Pocket I, Narela, New Delhi, which was got
transferred from DSIIDC in the name of the petitioner's mother on the basis of a
false affidavit and a forged and fabricated Will. He further submits that at the time
of his demise, Late Sh. B.D. Sharma was survived by six legal heirs, but only four
were named in the aforesaid affidavit by Smt. Ved Kumari and the names of the
present petitioner as well as his elder brother Sh. D.D. Sharma were deliberately
not mentioned as legal heirs of Late Sh. B.D. Sharma. Learned counsel also
submitted that Smt. Ved Kumari later on submitted a rectified affidavit mentioning
the names of all the legal heirs. He further submitted that it was also alleged in the
complaint that the Will stated to be executed by Late Sh. B.D. Sharma was forged
and fabricated as his signatures on the said Will were forged. Lastly, with respect
to the cancellation report, learned counsel contended that the Investigating Officer
did not investigate other aspects of the matter and restricted the enquiry to
verification of the signatures appearing on the aforesaid Will.
4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the present
petition and supported the impugned orders. He submits that on the basis of the
FSL Report, wherein it is stated that the signatures on the Will alleged to be forged
and fabricated are original signatures of Late Sh. B.D. Sharma, both the Courts
below have arrived at a consistent conclusion that no further investigation is
required in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in
the FIR are centred on the imputation that the Will of Late Sh. B.D. Sharma is a
forged document, and thus, the expert opinion from FSL, which does not support
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:13.12.2021
13:00:13
the case of the petitioner, renders any further investigation unnecessary. He also
submitted that the Investigating Officer in the present case had sent a notice to the
Manager, DSIIDC calling for original affidavits and in reply, it was informed that
subsequent rectified affidavit of Smt. Ved Kumari was not on file.
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire
material placed on record.
6. A perusal of the material placed on record would show that during
investigation, the Investigating Officer had issued a notice under Section 91
Cr.P.C. to Manager, DSIIDC on 11th August, 2009 seeking original affidavits
dated 4th November, 2000, 19th December, 2000 and 29th March, 2005, as well as
sent the aforesaid Will to FSL, alongwith admitted signature of Late Sh. B.D.
Sharma. Vide letter dated 3rd September, 2009, the Manager, DSIIDC provided
the attested copies of affidavits dated 4th November, 2000 and 29th March 2005,
however, insofar as the subsequent rectified affidavit stated to be dated 31st March
2005 is concerned, it was reported that the same was not on file. Further, in the
FSL report, the signatures of Late Sh. B.D. Sharma on the Will, vide which the
aforesaid property stood transferred in the name of the petitioner's mother, were
opined to be original.
7. It is noted that both the Courts below concluded that the signature on the
aforesaid Will having been opined to be original by the FSL, no further
investigation was required in the present case.
8. Further, the aforesaid Will is a registered document and on a specific Court
query as to whether the petitioner has initiated any civil proceedings challenging
the Will, the answer has been given in the negative.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:13.12.2021
13:00:13
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity
or illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 08, 2021
v
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:13.12.2021
13:00:13
