Delhi High Court
Sudhir Kumar Marwaha vs Central Beureau Of Investigation on 4 April, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 3rd February, 2022
Pronounced on: 4th April, 2022
+ CRL.M.C. 1590/2019 & CRL.M.A. 6356/2019
SUDHIR KUMAR MARWAHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Manish Kaushik,
Advocate.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Nikhil Goel, SPP with Mr.
Vinay Mathew and Mr. Aditya
Roy, Advocates
+ CRL.REV.P. 1160/2018, CRL.M.A. 50222/2018 & CRL.M.A.
13911/2021
ROHIT BHUCHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Prateek Bhalla, Mr.Varun
Deswal, Mr. Siddharth Singh
Yadav and Ms. Punya Rekha
Angra, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Nikhil Goel, SPP with Mr.
Vinay Mathew and Mr. Aditya
Roy, Advocates
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1590/2019 & connected matters Page 1 of 48
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
+ W.P.(CRL) 1608/2019 & CRL.M.A. 11733/2019
YASHPAL SACHDEVA & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.S. Singal, Advocate
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Nikhil Goel, SPP with Mr.
Vinay Mathew and Mr. Aditya
Roy, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
JUDGMENT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant matters have been filed by the parties against Order of
the learned Special Judge dated 23rd October, 2018 and 29th October,
2018 whereby the learned Special Judge, CBI-01, North West, Rohini,
Delhi, had passed the Order on charge against the accused, present
petitioners, in RC-S18-2006-E0010 filed by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter "CBI").
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER
a. A cooperative Society was registered on 5th November, 1982,
namely, Om Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter
"the Society") vide registration No. 480 (GH) having its registered office
at 2/827, First Floor, Part-I, Sarai Julena, Okhla Road, Delhi. On 22nd
April, 1988, the said Society was put under liquidation.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
b. On 21st November, 2002, an application was made for revival of
the Society and vide Order dated 10th January, 2003 the Society was
revived by Mr. Narayan Diwakar, the then Registrar Cooperative
Societies, (hereinafter "RCS"), also the Accused No. 1 in the FIR.
c. The Society, thereafter, applied for allotment of land from the
Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter "DDA") and submitted a list of
115 members for the same and on the basis of the list, the case of the
Society was processed by the DDA for allotment.
d. As per the first Offer-Cum-Demand Letter dated 3rd February,
2003, the Society was given the option to either choose between Dhirpur
and Dwarka area for allotment of land and after paying 35% of the land
cost on the basis of provisional pre-determined rate.
e. A savings account No. 35150 was opened at the Corporation Bank
in the name of the Society by Mr. Prem Bhutani, Accused No. 10, with
Mr. Yashpal, Accused No. 12, as his co-sharer for making the payment in
the name of the Society and a pay order of Rs. 1,11,02,400/- and of Rs.
4,00,000/- was issued favouring DDA.
f. DDA issued Offer Letter dated 3rd February, 2003 and Allotment
Letter dated 31st December, 2003 as well as the Possession Letters dated
9th September, 2004 and 11th October, 2004 and the Society was allotted
and given possession of a plot of land measuring 6501.52 sq. meters at
Plot No. 12, Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi by DDA on 15th October,
2004.
g. It was alleged that Mr. S.P. Saxena, Accused No. 7, sold the
Society to Mr. Rohit Bhuchar, Accused No. 5 for a sum of Rs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
1,15,05,430/- by way of 13 cheques in the name of the Society towards
the 35% cost.
h. A divisional bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.
10066/2004 directed the CBI for investigation into allotment of over 90
societies, including Om Cooperative Group Housing Society, with
direction to the CBI on the aspect of "unholy alliance and connivance
between builder mafia and the officers working in the Office of Registrar
Co-operative Societies, DDA and the Societies and fraudulent revival of
defunct societies." Pursuant to the Order and directions, a preliminary
inquiry No. PE SIJ 2006 E 0001 dated 9th March, 2006 was registered in
CBI EOU-VI and subsequently, the CBI filed a chargesheet against 17
accused, in the case against Om CGHS, including the present petitioners,
Mr. Rohit Bhuchar, Accused No. 5, Mr. Yashpal Sachdeva, Accused No.
12, Mr. Sushil Chhabra, Accused No. 13, and Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Marwaha, Accused No. 15, under Section 120B/420/468/471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") read with Section 13 (2)/
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter "PC Act")
for allegedly entering into criminal conspiracy for reviving the said
Society as well as allotment of the land by DDA on the basis of forged
and fake documents.
i. On 29th October, 2018 the learned Special Judge passed the
impugned Order whereby charges were framed against the petitioners.
j. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred the instant petition to challenge
the said Order.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
SUBMISSIONS
2. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the Accused No. 15, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha in Crl MC 1590/2019,
submitted that the impugned Order framing charges against Accused
No.15 is erroneous as he had no role in the alleged criminal conspiracy,
had only been roped in to be a part of the alleged criminal conspiracy and
had joined the Society only on 20th February, 2003, that is much later to
the revival of Society on 10th January, 2003. The charges have been
framed against him under Section 468/471/420 and Section 120B of the
IPC, despite the fact that he did not take any part in the course of some
transactions as under the requirement of Section 223 of the Cr.P.C.
3. It is submitted that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha could not have
been involved in the requirement of meeting of mind for criminal
conspiracy in so far as he became the member of the Society after the
object of such alleged conspiracy, that is the revival of the Society had
already been achieved and concluded. There was neither any meeting of
mind nor was Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha involved in any manner with
the public servants. Learned senior counsel relied upon the case Indira
Dalal vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that once the object of the conspiracy has been
achieved the subsequent act, even if unlawful, would not make the
accused a part pf that conspiracy. He further relied upon John Pandian
vs. State, (2010) 14 SCC 129, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in timely
decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of offence,
to submit that it had not been alleged that there was meeting of minds of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha with any of the other accused persons. It was
further observed in the judgment that the essence of the offence of
conspiracy is neither in doing or completion, nor even in the attempt to do
a particular unlawful act, but in forming of the scheme or agreement
between the parties. It is submitted that there was no iota of evidence to
establish that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha had any dishonest intention or
knowledge as to what all transpired before the RCS or in the process of
revival.
4. It is further submitted that there were no insinuations by the
prosecution that Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha had cheated nor was it able
to attribute any allegation of forgery against him, owing also to the fact
that he had joined the Society after its revival and could not have been
involved in the conspiracy leading to the said revival as well as the
allotment by the DDA. Further, while he was the President of the society,
he signed on various documents and meeting proceedings in good faith
relying on the part of the accountant of the society not having the
knowledge that whether the records of 115 members of the society for
allotment from DDA were bearing forged signatures. Further, even
assuming, though not admitting, that he had the knowledge of the
conspiracy and its object, it has been reiterated in a plethora of
judgements of this Court that mere knowledge of not sufficient to bring
home the charge of conspiracy. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment
of Esher Singh vs State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585, where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has stated that mere knowledge or even discussion, of the
plan is not, per say, enough to establish the offence of conspiracy. It was
further observed that it was also held that to bring home the charge of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
conspiracy, it must be shown that when all the circumstances are
comprehensively taken together, should conclusively indicate towards the
meeting of minds of the accused persons. A few bits here and a few bits
there on which the prosecution relied could not have form the basis of
trying the accused persons for the offence of conspiracy.
5. It is submitted that the offence of cheating could not have been
attributed towards Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha, since, neither were there
any allegations against him nor any of the ingredients of cheating were
met. Reliance has been placed on A.P. Narang vs. CBI, (2011) SCC
OnLine Del 212 to submit that the offence of cheating was not made out
against him.
6. On the charge of forgery, it is submitted by the learned senior
counsel that the offence of alleged forgery has been completed prior to
the enrolment of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha as a member of the society.
The learned Special Judge erred in framing the charges of forgery against
the instant petitioner.
7. The impugned Order of the learned Special Judge is also liable to
be set aside as the it did not consider that the Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents ("hereinafter GEQD") Report was not admissible
in evidence for the reason that specimen signatures of Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Marwaha were not obtained under the directions of the concerned
Magistrate.
8. Although Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha was a close associate to Mr.
Rohit Bhuchar, Accused No. 5, against whom the charges of conspiracy
and forgery have been framed, that did not mean that Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Marwaha had also committed that said acts. It is submitted that since the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
Accused No. 10 and 11, Mr. Prem Bhutani and Mr. Anil Bhutani,
respectively, who were persons managing the funds as well as its
movement, had opened the bank account in the name of the Society for
carrying out the payment, and made payment to DDA in lieu of the
allotment of land at subsidized price, have already been discharged by the
learned Special Judge since, no criminal conspiracy could be established
against them, hence, the question of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha being
charged under the above-mentioned offences does not even arise.
9. It is submitted on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha, in light of
the judgements of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2000) 2 SCC 135, and P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, AIR (2010) SC
663, that at the time of framing of charges, the concerned judge has to
satisfy itself that prima-facie offences have been made out on the basis of
the documents and it is a settled principle of law that the Judge, while
framing of charge, must consider the wide probabilities and total effect of
the evidence and documents produced before it, however, he must not
conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh
the evidence as he was conducting a trial.
10. Hence, in light of the submissions made above, the impugned
Order is liable to be set aside and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha should be
discharged in the instant case because there are no sufficient grounds for
framing charges against him.
11. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
Accused No. 5, Mr. Rohit Bhuchar, in Crl. Rev. P. 1160/2018, submitted
that his case is similar to Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha as he too, had
joined the Society on 20th February, 2003, after the revival of the Society
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
had already taken place. Further, even though he was a member since
February, 2003, he paid the required amount of Rs. 3,01,010/- towards
the membership of the Society only in September, 2003, prior to which he
was not involved in the activities of the Society. He was elected as the
Secretary of the Society from 25th July, 2004 to 31st December, 2006 and
is a bona fide member of the Society with no undue benefit accruing to
him.
12. The chargesheet records the fact that Mr. Rohit Bhuchar paid his
membership fees on 6th September, 2003 and as per the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, (hereinafter "DCS Rules") a person
acquires membership rights under Rule 30 (4) only upon payment of the
admission fee. Till September, 2003 all objects of the alleged criminal
conspiracy had already been achieved.
13. It is submitted that the learned Special Judge was wrong in framing
charges against Mr. Rohit Bhuchar as he had no role in the alleged
criminal conspiracy or any involvement with the public officials in the
revival of the Society, neither was he involved in the activities of the
Society. It has been wrongly observed by the learned Special Judge that
he had has signed various undated proceedings as the Treasurer of the
Society and that he used to forge resignations and cash vouchers as
genuine. It is submitted that Mr. Rohit Bhuchar was not, at any point of
time, the Treasurer of the Society and hence, the observation of the
learned Special Judge was patently wrong. Furthermore, there is no
material in the charge sheet to the effect that the writing on resignations
or cash vouchers was his. Even the GEQD Report has nowhere linked
Mr. Rohit Bhuchar to the alleged resignations and cash vouchers.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
14. Furthermore, the learned Special Judge has referred to the
statements of PW98, Mr. Satish Gupta, and PW99, Mr. Subhash Chander
Mahajan, however, none of them have made any allegation against Mr.
Rohit Bhuchar in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. As per the statement of PW98, it was clear that Mr. Rohit
Bhuchar only provided financial help to the Society by arranging an
amount of Rs 1.15 Crores through cheques alongwith Rs. 1.50 Lakhs in
cash towards miscellaneous and administrative charges. It is submitted
that PW98, in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. stated that
he was approached by Mr. Rohit Bhuchar who requested him to arrange
memberships for 25-30 persons in any CGHS, in furtherance of which, he
met with Mr. S.P. Saxena, who told him about Om CGHS. He came to
know from Mr. S.P. Saxena that due to financial problems society
members were unable to pay the remaining amount to be paid towards the
land cost to be made to DDA. It was stated by PW98 that Mr. S.P. Saxena
desired that Mr. Rohit Bhuchar paid Rs. 1.15 Crores through cheques and
a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs or Rs. 1.75 lakhs in case. Mr. Rohit Bhuchar
arranged the amount on his own account from his relatives, friends, and
his partnership firm Suruchi Enterprises. After receiving the said amount
through cheques and cash, Mr. S.P. Saxena handed over the records of the
Society to Mr. Rohit Bhuchar. It is submitted that the amount was paid
towards the society and not to Mr. S.P. Saxena and it has been wrongly
observed by the learned Special Judge that Mr. Rohit Bhuchar had taken
control over the management and control of the Society. Hence, the only
role attributed to Mr. Rohit Bhuchar was of arranging funds by way of
loans.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
15. It is submitted that during Managing Committee meetings held on
various dates between 2004-2005, resignations of members were
accepted and some new members were inducted. It is submitted that
proper procedure was followed in conducting the meetings of the
Managing Committee in accordance with the DCS Act, 1972 as well as
DCS Rules and the registered bye-laws of the Society. In fact, some of
the resignations from the members of society were made when Mr. Rohit
Bhuchar was not even holding office and further, inductions of the family
members and friends of Mr. Rohit Bhuchar cannot be coined as criminal
conspiracy on his behalf since, even the family members or friends
sought membership in their individual capacity for which there existed no
mens rea.
16. It is submitted that Mr. Rohit Bhuchar never took control and
management of the Society from Mr. S.P. Saxena by payment of sum of
Rs. 1.15 Crores. Such amount was paid to the Society by way of 13
cheques and not to Mr. S.P. Saxena, as wrongly observed by the learned
Special Judge. The chargesheet alleged that he had purchased the Society,
however, there is no provision for purchase or sale of a Society under the
DCS Rules as well as the registered byelaws of the Society.
17. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgement of State vs.
Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, to submit that the alleged accused in
a conspiracy who committed the conspiracy by indulging in various overt
acts will be individually liable for those offences in addition to being
liable for criminal conspiracy, by the non-participant conspirators cannot
be found guilty of the offence(s) committed by the other conspirators. It
was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
"107. In Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India while discussing
the question whether the conspiracy is a continuing offence,
the following pertinent observations were made by K
Ramaswamy, J., speaking for the Bench at para 11: (SCC
p. 618)
"Conspiracy to commit a crime itself is punishable as a
substantive every individual offence committed pursuant to
the conspiracy is a separate and distinct offence for which
individual offenders are liable to punishment, independent
of the conspiracy."
108. Thus, a distinction was maintained between the
conspiracy and the offences committed pursuant to the
conspiracy. It is only in order to prove the existence of
conspiracy and the parties to the conspiracy, that a rule of
evidence is enacted in Section 10 based on the principle of
agency. We may recall that Section 10 of the Evidence Act
provides that anything said, done or written by one of the
conspirators in reference to the common intention of all of
them can be proved as a relevant fact as against each of the
conspirators, subject to the condition prescribed in the
opening part of the section. Thus, the evidence which is in
the nature of hearsay is made admissible on the principle
that there is mutual agency amongst the conspirators. It is
in the context of Section 10 that the relevant observations
were made in the first Caveeshar case and Nalini case at p.
517. In the former case, Jagannadhadas, J., after referring
to the passage in Roscoe's Criminal Evidence (16th Edn.)
that "an overt act committed by any one of the conspirators
is sufficient, on the general principles of agency, to make it
the act of all", observed that
"the principle underlying the reception of evidence under
Section 10 of the Evidence Act of the statements, acts and
writings of one co-conspirator as against the other is on the
theory of agency" (SCR p. 205}.
It was not held in those cases that the same principle of
agency should be stretched either to make all the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
conspirators liable for the offensive acts done pursuant to
the conspiracy, irrespective of their role and participation
in the ultimate offensive acts. Whether or not the
conspirators will be liable for substantive offences other
than the conspiracy and, if so, to what extent and what
punishment has to be given for the conspiracy and the other
offences committed pursuant thereto, depend on the specific
scheme and provisions of the penal law. The offence cannot
be spelt out by applying the principle of agency if the
statute does not say so. For instance, in the case of Section
34 IPC, the constructive liability for the crime is
specifically fastened on each of those who participate in the
crime in furtherance of the common intention. But Section
120-B does not convey that idea."
18. Reliance was further placed on State (through Superintendent of
Police) vs. Nalini & Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 253, wherein it was held as
under:-
"662. ... In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or
more persons share information about doing an illegal act
or a legal act by illegal means. This is the first stage where
each is said to have knowledge of a plan for committing an
illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those
sharing the information some or all may form an intention
to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Those
who do form the requisite intention would be parties to the
agreement and would be conspirators but those who drop
out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of
mere knowledge unless they commit acts or omissions from
which a guilty common intention can be inferred....".
19. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment of
Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody vs The State of Bombay, 1961 SCC OnLine
SC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to provision of
conspiracy observed that:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
"21. This section lays down a rule of evidence and its
application is strictly conditioned by the existence of
reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons
have conspired together to commit an offence. The opening
words of the section laying down a condition and the
qualification laid down in the body of the section in regard
to admissible acts, that is, they should be in reference to
their common intention and also should have been
committed, after the time when such intention was first
entertained, indicate that the existence of a conspiracy must
be established by prima facie evidence before the acts done
or things written by any of the persons can be used as
evidence against the others or for the purpose of proving
the existence of the conspiracy. The illustration also
premises the existence of a reasonable ground for believing
that a particular person has joined a conspiracy in order to
enable the facts particularized in it to be brought under the
category of relevant evidence. Shortly stated, before the
section can be invoked, as a general rule, some prima facie
evidence should be placed before the Court to enable it to
form an opinion that there is reasonable ground to believe
that two or more persons have conspired together; and if
that condition is fulfilled the acts and declarations of a
conspirator against his fellow conspirators may be
admitted as evidence. In the present case no material had
been placed before the Presidency Magistrate to sustain a
reasonable ground to believe that the appellants were
parties to the main conspiracy and, therefore, the operation
of the section even if it was applicable at that stage, would
not be of any help to the State. The High Court, in the
circumstances of this case, in our view, was not justified in
interfering with the discretion of the Presidency Magistrate
exercised in a most balanced and reasonable manner."
20. Further in Esher Singh vs State of A.P. (Supra), the following
observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
"36- In Halsbury's laws of England {vide 4th Edn., Vol. 11,
p. 44, para 58), the English law as to conspiracy has been
stated thus:
"58. Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more
persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by
unlawful means. It is an indictable offence at common law,
the punishment for which Is Imprisonment or fine or both in
the discretion of the court.
The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of
combination by agreement. The agreement may be express
or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The
conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as
the agreement is made; arid the offence continues to be
committed so long as the combination persists, that is until
the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion
of its performance or by abandonment or frustration or
however it may be. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the
agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution
of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the
same unlawful Object at the same time or in the same
place; It is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a
consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however,
necessary that each conspirator should have been in
communication with every other.
44. The most Important Ingredient of the offence being the
agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal
act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the
court must inquire whether the two persons are
Independently pursuing the same end or they have come
together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not
render them conspirators but the latter does. For the
offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation
of agreement is required to be established. The express
agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the
transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is
sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or
frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence
whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or series
of acts, he would be held guilty under Section I20-B IPC."
21. Reliance has also been placed upon L.K. Advani vs Central
Bureau of Investigation, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 382, wherein a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:
"87. There is another aspect of the matter. The prosecution
must prove the factum of the conspiracy by evidence other
than the disputed evidence i.e. the diaries and the loose
sheets which have been placed on the record of this Court.
It has been observed above that there is no such evidence.
The alleged entries relate to past facts. The alleged entries
must have been made after the disbursement. Hence they
cannot be said to have been made in execution of the
common intention of the conspiracy."
22. Learned senior counsel also relied upon the judgment of Union of
India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, to elaborate upon the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on questions to be
considered while framing of charges to submit that as such the learned
Judge need not conduct a roving enquiry while framing of charges and
only prima facie consideration needs to be given.
23. It is submitted that for the reasons stated above the impugned
Order framing charge against Mr. Rohit Bhuchar is patently illegal and
suffers from manifest error and infirmity and hence, is liable to be set
aside.
24. Mr. P.S. Singal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Accused
No. 12, Mr. Yashpal Sachdeva and Accused No. 13, Mr. Sushil Chhabra,
in W.P. (Crl) 1608/2019, submitted that both the petitioners had joined
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
the Society after the object of conspiracy had already been achieved and
the Society had been revived. It is submitted that the alleged conspiracy
was two-fold, for revival of the Society and for obtaining DDA land at a
cheaper rate. And hence, the conspiracy ended upon the receipt of land by
taking advantage of the Society that had become defunct, however, no
benefit accrued to the petitioners in the same and they were not part of the
said conspiracy.
25. It is submitted that the learned Special Judge failed to consider that
once a freezing list of members is sent to the DDA, there is no role of the
officials of RCS and the Society left to be played in allotment of the land.
26. It is further, submitted that at the stage of framing of charge the
Court has power to shift and weigh the evidence to find out the prima
facie case against the accused persons. In the present case, however, there
is no evidence connecting Mr. Yashpal Sachdeva and Mr. Sushil Chhabra
with the alleged offences. Moreover, the charges against the
petitioners/accused are groundless.
27. There are sufficient provisions under the DCS Rules, for
prosecution of the accused in relation to the allegations leveled against
the petitioners and the prosecution under the IPC and the PC Act is bad in
law. It is submitted that since there is a specific law and a complete
mechanism to adjudicate upon the allegations made, the application of
general statute is not permissible in law and hence, the impugned Order is
liable to be set aside for the reason of it being illegal, erroneous, improper
and contrary to the facts and law.
28. Per Contra, Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned SPP for the Respondent/CBI
in all the matters, opposed the instant petitions and submitted that there
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
are no illegalities or errors in the impugned Order passed by the learned
Special Judge. The preliminary enquiry by the CBI into the matter of
allotment of land pertaining to 97 housing societies, as per the Orders of
a division bench of this Court dated 9th January, 2006 and 13th February,
2006 in Writ Petition (C) 10066/2004, revealed that officials of RCS
abused their official position as public servants in criminal conspiracy
with the private persons, by accepting false and forged documents, and
allotted land to the societies at much lower price than prevailing in the
market for construction of residential flats. In light on the above
discovery, FIR No. RC no. 10(E)/2006/EOU-IV/CBI, was registered
making out cognizable offences under Section 120B read with Sections
420/468/471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of the PC
Act.
29. Moreover, relying upon the judgement of Sajjan Kumar vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2010 (9) SCC 368, it is submitted that
at the stage of framing of charge the only requirement to see is whether or
not 'grave suspicion' regarding the involvement of the accused exists. The
evaluation of material on record has to be done only to determine
existence of such suspicion and not to determine the prima facie guilt or
otherwise of an accused. The material to be analysed at this stage is the
prosecution material and not the defence of the accused in accordance
with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs.
Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.
30. It is submitted that since, the case involves a charge of conspiracy,
individual roles in exclusion to the allegation of conspiracy ought not to
be seen at this stage. This is more so in view of the legal position that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
conspiracy can be proved even by inference and all that is required to be
seen at this stage is whether there is some connecting link or connecting
factor which exists to show the involvement of the charge sheeted
accused. The impact of such involvement can only be appreciated upon
receipt of evidence. It is further submitted that the substance of the
conspiracy is that at various stages, the accused have conspired to get a
defunct society registered in the year 1982 revived for the purpose of
securing a large parcel of land at a concessional rate from DDA. It is
submitted that the conspiracy does not get limited to the mere revival of
the society but terminates upon getting possession of 1.5 acres of DDA
land at a very cheap price and that to for personal use i.e. for profiteering.
It is not even the defense in the petitions filed that the land so allotted was
to be used for the original members of the society as registered in 1982.
The investigation has actually showed that the members of the society
were changed, on paper, for the sole purpose of completion of record with
the DDA and the land so allotted has actually gone to the private benefit
of the accused, it is this conspiracy in respect of which the charges have
been framed. The second leg of conspiracy began after receipt of offer
letter dated 3rd February, 2003 from the DDA seeking to allot the land
admeasuring 6501.52 Sq.mt at plot 12, Sector 19, Dwarka. The
conspiracy culminated in handing over the offer letter to Mr. Rohit
Bhuchar, who is a contractor by profession, who ensured that not only the
35% of the price paid by Mr. Prem Bhutani and All is returned, the
remaining 65% of the money for the land for paid to the DDA. The 115
names for whose requirement the DDA had allotted land was slowly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
replaced by other members some accused and some witnesses who were
either related to known to or otherwise dealt with Mr. Rohit Bhuchar.
31. It is submitted that the accused in the FIR entered into the criminal
conspiracy with fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the office of
RCS and DDA in the matter of revival of the Society and allotment of
land to Om CGHS Ltd. As a result, the Society was revived vide Order
dated 10th January, 2003 on the basis of false and forged documents,
misrepresentation of facts/deception, impersonation and by using the
false and forged documents as genuine. Moreover, the revival had taken
place after 14 years of liquidation without removing the defects
mentioned in the liquidation. Further, the list of members sent to the
DDA for allotment consisted of non-bona fide members and the same
was done without getting the pending audit completed as stipulated in the
revival Order. The same is the testament to approach taken by the RCS in
reviving the society.
32. The role of Mr. Yashpal Sachdeva and Mr. Sushil Chhabra came
into being when the payment of 35% of land cost was to be made to the
DDA. Both were the authorized signatories in the account opened by Mr.
Prem Bhutani, Accused No. 10. In September, 2003, Mr. S.P. Saxena
sold the society to Mr. Rohit Bhuchar and thereafter, it was decided that
the 115 members of the Society were to be ousted in a phased manner and
new members were to be inducted as per the choice of Mr. Rohit
Bhuchar. It is submitted that after taking over the society, Mr. Rohit
Bhuchar made his relatives and friends members and office bearers of the
society. It is at this stage that he alongwith Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha
started playing an active role in making new members, arranging funds
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
and making payments to DDA. Besides, these two persons also used the
false and forged documents as genuine before RCS office when they
falsely intimidated about the resignations, enrolment and election etc.
being the Secretary and President of the society, respectively.
33. It is submitted that in fact the contention on behalf of Mr. Rohit
Bhuchar that some of the resignations of the members were prior in time
to his election as an office bearer is false, in so far as he alongwith Mr.
Ashwani Sharma, Accused No. 8, entered into criminal conspiracy to
draw backdated proceedings to facilitate him to induct new members on
his own volition by falsely showing resignations of all 115 members in a
phased manner. It is submitted that the said resignations bore the
signatures in the handwriting of officers including Mr. Gokul Chand
Aggarwal, Accused No. 6 and Mr. Ashwani Sharma.
34. It is submitted that the investigation established that the accused
public servants as well as the private persons were in criminal conspiracy
for illegally reviving the Society on the basis of false/forged documents,
misrepresentation of facts and impersonation by other co-accused
persons. There were further shortcomings in the procedure of the revival
of the society. The accused persons did not ensure the existence of the
society, genuineness of the members and correctness of the documents
before reviving a defunct society after a long gap of more than 14 years.
35. Learned SPP for the Respondent submitted that it was after
collecting incriminating evidence that the chargesheet was filed against
the 17 accused persons, including the petitioners, herein. It is submitted
that the Order framing charges against the petitioners had been passed by
the learned Special Judge as per law, and is just and proper. The same
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
was passed after appreciating the material before it. It is therefore,
submitted by the learned SPP that the present petitions may be dismissed
for them being devoid of any merit.
ANALYSIS
36. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have
perused the impugned Order dated 23rd October, 2018 as well as 29th
October, 2018.
37. The instant petitions have been filed by the petitioners in the
connected matters challenging the Order of the learned Special Judge-
CBI, by which it had framed charges against the accused, including the
petitioners herein, of offences punishable under the IPC as well as the PC
Act. At the very outset it may be pertinent to outline the extent of power
while framing charges that the concerned Court may exercise.
PRINCIPLE ON FRAMING OF CHARGES
38. Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. provides for the power of framing
charge and lays down as under: -
"228. Framing of charge.--(1) If, after such
consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is
of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence which--
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session,
he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by
order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the
first class and direct the accused to appear before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be,
the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such
date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate]
shall try the offence in accordance with the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on
a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame
in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause
(b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and
explained to the accused and the accused shall be
asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence
charged or claims to be tried."
39. As per the aforesaid provision, if a Judge upon consideration of
record of the case as well as the documents before it, is of the opinion that
there exists sufficient ground based on which a presumption can be made
that the accused may have committed an offence, then he shall frame such
a charge in writing against the accused. Further, to presume that an
offence may have been committed, the opinion of the Judge for existence
of a ground for presumption is to be supported by the prima facie material
on record, upon consideration of which the learned Judge may frame the
charges against the accused.
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter State of Maharashtra
vs. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 had laid down its observations
by way of the following test for framing of charge:-
"30. In Antulay case [R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, (1986) 2
SCC 716: 1986 SCC (Cri) 256] Bhagwati, C.J., opined,
after noting the difference in the language of the three pairs
of sections, that despite the difference there is no scope for
doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to
consider the question of framing of charge, the test of
„prima facie‟ case has to be applied. According to Shri
Jethmalani, a prima facie case can be said to have been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
made out when the evidence, unless rebutted, would make
the accused liable to conviction. In our view, a better and
clearer statement of law would be that if there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a
court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him
exists, and so, frame a charge against him for committing
that offence.
31. Let us note the meaning of the word „presume‟. In
Black's Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean „to
believe or accept upon probable evidence‟. In Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary it has been mentioned that in
law „presume‟ means „to take as proved until evidence to
the contrary is forthcoming‟, Stroud's Legal Dictionary has
quoted in this context a certain judgment according to
which „A presumption is a probable consequence drawn
from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as
to the truth of a fact alleged.‟ In Law Lexicon by P.
Ramanatha Aiyar the same quotation finds place at p. 1007
of 1987 Edn.
32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on
record, a court could come to the conclusion that
commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a
case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the
court were to think that the accused might have committed
the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction
the conclusion is required to be that the accused has
committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of
framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on
record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on
record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that
stage."
41. Further, in Prafulla Kumar Samal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court laid down the principles regarding the considerations before the
concerned Court while framing of charges and discharging an accused: -
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned
above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is
difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and
large however if two views are equally possible and the
Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him
while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to
discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a
senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post
office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect
of the evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This however does not mean that the judge should make
a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
42. The principle has been reiterated in the judgment of State of M.P.
v. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338, wherein it has been said that:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
"The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of
framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. The court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are
sufficient or not for convicting the accused."
43. In State of M.P. v. Rakesh Mishra, (2015) 13 SCC 8, the
observation mentioned below were provided for:-
"7. The major argument advanced by the State of Madhya
Pradesh before us has been that the High Court traversed
beyond the permissible limit while deciding the legality of
order framing charges, being a pre-trial stage. Various
authorities have been cited before us to prove that point.
However, it would suffice to say that the law on this point is
crystal clear that only charge-sheet along with the
accompanying material is to be considered at the stage of
framing of charges, so as to satisfy whether a prima facie
case is made out. It has to be the subjective satisfaction of
the court framing charges. In our opinion, the High Court
has only examined the material before it against the
prevailing law to reach its conclusions. Thus, the impugned
judgment may not be assailable on this ground.
8. However, the question that arises is whether the material
available against the accused persons at this stage makes
out a prima facie case that the alleged offence could have
been committed by them. The offences charged against the
accused are the offences under Section 13(2) and Section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section
120-B of the Penal Code."
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam,
(2020) 2 SCC 217, has laid down as under:-
"13. ... At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie
case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing
the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the
materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only
prima facie case against the accused is to be seen.
"15. Considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228
CrPC, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 :
(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] ,
the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC pp. 477-79,
paras 17 & 19)
"17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of
jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of Section 228
of the Code, unless the accused is discharged under
Section 227 of the Code. Under both these
provisions, the court is required to consider the
"record of the case" and documents submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either
discharge the accused or where it appears to the
court and in its opinion there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an
offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the section exists, then the court would
be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed
against the accused and frame the charge
accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption
of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in
relation to the existence of constituents of an offence
and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non
for exercise of such jurisdiction.....
19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the
court is concerned not with proof but with a strong
suspicion that the accused has committed an offence,
which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that
the court has to see is that the material on record
and the facts would be compatible with the innocence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to
be applied at that stage...."
16. After referring to Amit Kapoor [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , in Dinesh Tiwari v. State of
U.P. [Dinesh Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2014) 13 SCC 137 :
(2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 614] , the Supreme Court held that for
framing charge under Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not
required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge
is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if
the Judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground
for presuming that the accused has committed the offence
triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge
against the accused for such offence."
45. Hence, it can be rightfully said that the extent of appreciating the
facts and material before the Court concerned while framing of charges is
limited to prima facie satisfaction of the Court that the accused before it
may have been involved in the commission of the offences alleged
against him. As per the abovementioned precedents, it may be reasonable
to say that the primary document of chargesheet and the accompanying
material would be sufficient for forming the opinion upon the existence
of a prima facie involvement on the part of the accused in the
commission of the offence. The satisfaction of the Court, however, is a
significant and principal consideration which would find its foundation
on the material available at the time of framing of the charge, how ever
simple or elaborate it may be. Further, upon such satisfaction, coupled
with prima facie appreciation of material on record, the Judge shall also
record the reasons in a nutshell for passing the Order of charge, whether
charging or discharging the accused, reflecting the consideration of
material before it while framing the charges.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
FINDINGS
46. The next test, henceforth, would reasonably be to assess whether
the learned Special Judge while passing the impugned Order, acted in
consonance with the principles discussed above to be followed while
exercising the power under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. to find out whether
there was any illegality or perverseness in the said Order.
47. The relevant portion of the learned Special Judge, with regard to
the present petitioners is highlighted as under, where the learned Judge
has appreciated the arguments as well as the material on record to make
the following observations:-
"20. It is true that the society was revived vide order
passed by accused Narayan Diwakar, the then Registrar on
10.01.2003 and till that time this accused was not on
picture at all. Perusal of the proceedings register of the
society shows that he was admitted as member of the
society in the managing committee meeting held on
20.02.2003. The minutes of this meeting do not bear the
signature of any of the office bearers of the society who
were present in the meeting. The argument that the charges
cannot be framed against this accused A5 Rohit Bhuchar as
no act attributed to him is stated to have been committed
prior to 10.01.2003 appears to be attractive at first blush
but is found to be devoid any merit when tested on the basis
of material on record. As per the case of prosecution, the
conspiracy had been hatched in this case with the object of
not only getting the society revived on the basis of forged
documents but also to secure allotment of land to it by
DDA. Mere revival of the society would have been of no use
to the conspirators as the benefits would have accrued to
them only after the land is allotted to the society upon
which flats could be built. Thus, the allotment of the land to
the society by DDA was the final object of the conspiracy
which can be stated to have been achieved only when the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
society was put in possession of the land by the DDA i.e. on
15.10.2004. Therefore, all those persons who joined the
conspiracy after 10.01.2003 also and did some act or other
towards fulfilment of the final object of the conspiracy cane
be safely taken to be as co-conspirators and charges can be
framed against them. A5 Rohit Bhuchar can not escape
liability for his criminal acts by saying that whatever he did
was after the society had been revived. It is very clear that
he too peformed various acts, though after revival of the
society, towards achievement of the final object of the
conspiracy i.e. allotment of the land to the society.
21. ...... Perusal of the statements of PW98 and PW99
clearly show that accused Rohit Bhuchar had assumed the
management and control of the society from S.P. Saxena
after paying him Rs. 1.15 crores approximately and
retained accused Ashwani Sharma, who had been
maintaining accounts/records of the society for accused
S.P. Saxena, to forge further records of the society by
manipulating the false resignations of all 115 members
whose names appeared in the freeze list sent to the DDA
and inducting his relatives, friends etc. as members of the
society in their place. Thus, this accused had changed the
entire complexion of the society by manipulating the
membership list of the society on the basis of which plot of
land was to be allotted. Hence, there exist strong grounds
to frame charges against him.
22. Similar arguments were raised on behalf of accused
A14 Mohit Saxena and A15 Sudhir Kumar Marwah. On
their behalf also, it was argued that the acts attributed to
them had taken place after the revival of the society and
therefore, they cannot be stated to be a part of the
conspiracy and that the GEQD report is not admissible in
evidence for the reason that the specimen signatures of
these accused had not been obtained under the directions of
the concerned Magistrate. These arguments have already
been discussed and rejected hereinabove and need not be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
discussed again here. Perusal of the documents on record
shows that accused Mohit Saxena has forged the signatures
as "Ashok Kumar" Secretary of the Society on the
Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 02.02.2003
and also on the letter dated 03.02.2003 submitted on behalf
of the society. This clearly shows at this stage that he was
acting in connivance with the other accused particularly
accused Rohit Bhuchar and was assisting him in forging
the documents related to the society to be submitted to
DDA to secure plot of land for it. Accused Sudhir Kumar
Marwah is stated to be close associate of accused Rohit
Bhuchar. He has signed various minutes of the Managing
Committee of the Society as its President wherein many
new members had been inducted in the society after
showing its previous members to have resigned falsely. This
was done in order to pave way for inducting the relatives
and friends of accused Rohit Bhuchar as member and office
bearers of the society so that he has full control over it and
the plot of land to be allotted to the society is at his
disposal. Hence, there is sufficient material on record
indicating the complicity of these accused in the offences
involved in this case and no case of their discharge has
been made out.
23. So far as the accused Yashpal Sachdeva and Sushil
Chhabra are concerned, admittedly they were not the
members of the society at any point of time. Despite being
strangers, they were appointed as Secretary and Treasurer
respectively of the society in the meeting dated 28.02.2003.
In the subsequent meeting dated 02.03.2003, they appear to
have been given authority to operate the saving bank
accounts of the society to be opened in Corporation Bank
Ltd., Preet Vihar Branch. Appointment of these accused as
the Secretary and Treasurer of the Society and authorising
them to open and operate the saving bank account in the
name of the society, even though they had not been the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
members of the society, raises strong suspicion that they
had been involved and were the part of overall conspiracy
and had been acting in connivance with the other accused
to ensure that the object of the conspiracy is fulfilled. Had
they not been part and parcel of overall conspiracy, there
was not reason or occasion for them to function as
Secretary and Treasurer of the Society and to operate the
bank account of the society. Hence, there exist prima-facie
grounds for framing charges against these two accused
also."
48. It is true that the conspiracy in question was not limited to
achieving just the one objective but there were two aims of forming the
conspiracy. The common objective intended to achieve by the
conspirators was first, the revival of the society and the second being the
allotment by the DDA at a subsidized rate. Hence, it may be the case that
the petitioners were not even a member, let alone a member elect, of the
society, however, it did not take away the ground for suspicion from them
that they were involved in the activities of the Society post their
becoming a member of the Society but prior to achievement of the
objective of the two-fold conspiracy. Therefore, their role in the
conspiracy still subsisted until the final object of getting allotment from
DDA was not achieved.
49. The appointment of Mr. Rohit Bhuchar was also an issue of
contention, since the minutes of the meeting in which he was inducted as
a member did not bear the signature of any elected member. It was
apparent that the documents pertaining to his role and election as a
Secretary was in fact done fraudulently by fabrication of documents on
past dates, so as to provide him with the control and management of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
Society, keeping in view that he played a principal role in creating false
resignations as well as inducted a significant amount of members, who
were in fact people known to him and thereby creating the list of 115
members, based on which the Society's request for allotment by DDA
was processed and was finally granted.
50. The accused Mr. Sudhir Kumar Marwaha was found to be a close
associate of Mr. Rohit Bhuchar. He even signed upon minutes pertaining
to the Managing Committee meetings that were held wherein several new
members of the Society were inducted after showing that the old
members of the Society had resigned. His role was found in creating the
list of 115 members, who were infact, fraudulently inducted and which
also became the primary ground for consideration of the Society for
allotment of the land by the DDA.
51. As per Mr. Yashpal Sachdeva and Mr. Sushil Chhabra, they played
a role in opening and then maintaining the accounts of the Society at a
very early stage of their membership, as they were designated the
Secretary and Treasurer without having being a member of the Society
for a significant time. Moreover, a few days later, they were given the
authority of operating the savings account of the Society, which again
raised a prima facie suspicion on their intent and their involvement in the
conspiracy.
52. The learned Special Judge, also considered the GEQD Report
which made out the case of forgery against the present petitioners and the
reasoning is found to have no default. The GEQD Report matched
signatures of some of the accused to those found on the resignations of
the old members. Although it was argued that the GEQD report was not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
in accordance with law for the reason that the signature specimens were
not obtained by following proper procedure, the argument did not hold
ground in so far as the Report raised a preliminary suspicion upon the
accused that there was an involvement of the accused in commission of
forgery which led to the freezing of 115 members in the Society, on the
basis of which the Society was allotted land by the DDA. Hence, the
consideration of the learned Special Judge was also without any error in
light of the judgement referred in Ravinder Singh @ Dara Singh vs.
Republic of India, AIR (2011) SCC 1436.
53. In accordance with Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., the keywords to be
given weightage are "after such consideration", "Judge is of the opinion"
and "there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence", that define the power of the Judge while framing of charge. In
the instant case, the learned Special Judge framed the charge against the
present petitioners in the following manner:-
a. Against Mr. Rohit Bhuchar, Accused No. 5- Under Section 468
read with Section 471 of the IPC for fraudulently, dishonestly
and knowingly creating/forging documents and using the fake
and fabricated documents as genuine for getting land from DDA
at subsidized rate, inducting 115 members on his own choice by
falsely showing resignations of previous members, and for
causing unlawful gain to himself and his co-accused, submitting
the forged documents for getting the land in the land in favour
of the Society, for the purposes of cheating the RCS, under
Section 420 of the IPC and for offences under Section 120B of
the IPC, amongst other reasons as well as.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
b. Against Mr. Yashpal Sachdeva, Accused No. 12- Under Section
468 and 471 of the IPC for fraudulently, dishonestly and
knowingly created/forged documents, and using them as
genuine, submitting those to the office of RCS/DDA himself or
his behalf in favour of the society, opening the bank account in
the name of the society when he was not even the member of
the same as on the date and forging signatures as office bearers
on the documents, and for causing unlawful gain to himself and
his co-accused, submitting the forged documents for getting the
land in the land in favour of the Society, for the purposes of
cheating the RCS, under Section 420 of the IPC and for
offences under Section 120B of the IPC, amongst other reasons.
c. Against Mr. Sushil Chhabra, Accused No. 13- Under Section
468 and 471 of the IPC for fraudulently, dishonestly and
knowingly created/forged documents, and using them as
genuine, submitting those to the office of RCS/DDA himself or
his behalf in favour of the society, opening the bank account in
the name of the society when he was not even the member of
the same as on the date and forging signatures as office bearers
on the documents, and for causing unlawful gain to himself and
his co-accused, submitting the forged documents for getting the
land in the land in favour of the Society, for the purposes of
cheating the RCS, under Section 420 of the IPC and for
offences under Section 120B of the IPC, amongst other reasons.
d. Against Sudhir Kumar Marwaha, Accused No. 15- Under
Section 468 read with Section 471 of the IPC for fraudulently,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
dishonestly and knowingly creating/forging documents and
using the fake and fabricated documents as genuine for getting
land from DDA at subsidized rate, inducting 115 members on
his own choice by falsely showing resignations of previous 115
members, forging signature as office bearer on documents, and
for causing unlawful gain to himself and his co-accused,
submitting the forged documents for getting the land in the land
in favour of the Society, for the purposes of cheating the RCS,
under Section 420 of the IPC and for offences under Section
120B of the IPC, amongst other reasons.
54. It is evident from the elaborate Order on charge, that the learned
Special Judge considered, analysed and appreciated the material before it
and then passed the Order on charge, recording the reasons for the same.
Learned Special Judge, prima facie satisfied itself on the question of
whether or not the accused may have committed the offence and upon
finding the answer to be affirmative, it passed the impugned Order. It is
found that in the opinion of the learned Special Judge, there existed
sufficient and preliminary grounds to presume that the accused,
petitioners herein, were involved in the commission of the offence. The
present petitioners were found to be part of a bigger conspiracy and they
each had a role to play which was enough to pass an Order framing
charge against them at the preliminary stage.
SCOPE OF EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
55. Accused Sudhir Kumar Marwaha has preferred to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
the provision enables the High Courts to make orders which may be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
necessary to either, firstly, give effect to any order under this Code, or to
secondly, prevent abuse of the process of any Court or finally, secure the
ends of justice. These powers under the provision are beyond the ambit of
powers otherwise granted to the Court under the Cr.P.C, however, there is
a limit to exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. For instance, if a
remedy is available with the petitioner under the Cr.P.C., then he may not
choose to take the recourse and seek relief under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. Hence, the power under the Section is innately and highly
discretionary and therefore, also extremely wide.
56. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations:-
"....Then in accordance with one of the other principles
enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play,
there being no other provision in the Code for the redress
of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if the
order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character
which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional
power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High
Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in
case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation
which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the
purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the
High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing
contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise
of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases
would be few and far between. The High Court must
exercise the inherent power very sparingly. One such case
would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal
proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being
without jurisdiction. Take for example a case where a
prosecution is launched under the Prevention of
Corruption Act without a sanction, then the trial of the
accused will be without jurisdiction and even after his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
acquittal a second trial, after proper sanction will not be
barred on the doctrine of autrefois acquit. Even assuming,
although we shall presently show that it is not so, that in
such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or
issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to
reason to say that inherent power of the High Court
cannot be exercised for stopping the criminal proceeding
as early as possible, instead of harassing the accused up to
the end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not
operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court
and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label of the
petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial. The
High Court can examine the matter in an appropriate case
under its inherent powers. The present case undoubtedly
falls for exercise of the power of the High Court in
accordance with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even
assuming, although not accepting, that invoking the
revisional power of the High Court is impermissible."
57. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as reproduced hereunder:-
58. "Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex
aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res
ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to
anyone, it also gives all those things without which the
thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very
wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that
the process of the court is not permitted to be abused."
59. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the question of exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and has laid down the principles state
hereunder:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
"99. Venkatachaliah, J. in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali
Khan [(1988) 4 SCC 655 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 27] has stated
that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to
be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has
given the working that in exercising that jurisdiction, the
High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether
the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established
by evidence or not.
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
60. In light of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High
Court in various cases it has been found that the powers under Section
482 also have a scope and limit within which the High Courts have to
exercise their inherent powers. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Private
Limited v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has prescribed that the High Courts while considering
quashing of FIR need not go into the cognizance of the offence and
appreciate any evidence. It was further held that under Section 482 the
orders directing "no coercive steps to be taken..." cannot be passed in a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
mechanical way and the High Court shall record reasons for making such
an observation while passing an interim order and it must indicate the
application of judicial mind. In case the concerned High Court decides to
stay an investigation, it has to be passed with circumspection and when it
finds that an exceptional case is made out for stay of investigation, and it
has also been observed that the High Court may not interfere with the
investigation when a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against
an accused.
61. Hence, it is inferred that the powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. are although wide enough for the High Courts to exercise their
discretion where it is deemed fit for the purpose of securing the ends of
justice, however, even these powers have fetters and need to be exercised
with extreme caution and without going into the deep and elaborate
appreciation of evidence, which may be the matter of trial.
SCOPE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
62. Mr. Rohit Bhuchar has approached this Court impugning the
Orders of the learned Special Judge under its revisional jurisdiction. The
Cr.P.C makes provision for the High Court to exercise its revisional
Jurisdiction in furtherance of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal
Court. The provision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C unequivocally
states that the High Court or the Sessions Court which is exercising its
revisional jurisdiction shall apprise itself solely of the question of
correctness, legality and propriety of order of the subordinate Court. A
bare reading of the provision of the Cr.P.C suggests that the Court shall
limit itself to the findings, sentence or order passed by the subordinate
Court, against which the Revisionist is seeking relief before the Courts
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
concerned, and shall not go beyond the analysis and observations made
by the subordinate court. By extension, a limitation and bar is, hence, set
out on the scope of the powers that may be exercised by the concerned
Court under the provision which precludes the Revisional Court to go
into the enquiry of evidence and submissions made before the subordinate
Court at the time of passing of the impugned Order, against which the
revision is sought.
63. Presently, the aforesaid order of the learned Special Judge is under
challenge before this Court in its revisional jurisdiction as well. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has given its findings with regard to the scope of
powers of the revisional jurisdiction and a five-judge bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs
Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, held as under: -
"43. The consideration or examination of the evidence by
the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts
is confined to find out facts recorded by the
Court/Authority below is according to the law and does
not suffer from any error of law.
... to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality
or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the
High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate
power to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for
coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is
not and cannot be equated with the power of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first
appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied
that the decision is according to law, it may examine
whether the Order impugned before it suffers from
procedural illegality or irregularity."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
64. Further in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (Supra), it has been
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reproduced under:-
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or
an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court
to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a
token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the various
judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on
no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt
restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or
interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to
injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the
question as to whether the charge has been framed
properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it
may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the
categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much
advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.
20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the
inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does
not specifically use the expression "prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice", the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very
limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an
order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also
requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be
exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance
with the provisions of law, the decision is completely
erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily."
This Court, in view of the aforesaid findings and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its revisional jurisdiction will not proceed into
the enquiry of the records, documents and other evidence in consideration
before the learned Special Judge, but shall constrain itself to the findings
of the learned Special Judge in the impugned order with respect to the
Accused No. 5, Mr. Rohit Bhuchar.
SCOPE OF WRIT JURISDICTION
65. The Accused Mr. Yashpal Sachdeva and Mr. Sushil Chhabra have
moved this Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State v. Navjot
Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641, has reiterated the principles laid down in
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749, as
stated under that draw a parallel between the powers granted to the High
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India:-
22. It is settled that the High Court can exercise its power of
judicial review in criminal matters. In State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
(Cri) 426] this Court examined the extraordinary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised
by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying
down certain guidelines where the court will exercise
jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these
guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be
followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole
purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guidelines is
where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused. Under Article
227 the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only
of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This
article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the
abuse of the process of law by the inferior courts and to see that
the stream of administration of justice remains clean and
pure. The power conferred on the High Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the
Code have no limits but more the power more due care and
caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers. When
the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section
482 of the Code it may not always be necessary to invoke the
provisions of Article 226. Some of the decisions of this Court
laying down principles for the exercise of powers by the High
Court under Articles 226 and 227 may be referred to.
23. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath [AIR 1954 SC 215] this
Court considered the scope of Article 227. It was held that the
High Court has not only administrative superintendence over
the subordinate courts and tribunals but it has also the power of
judicial superintendence. The Court approved the decision of
the Calcutta High Court in Dalmia Jain Airways
Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee [AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB)] where the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
High Court said that the power of superintendence conferred by
Article 227 was to be exercised most sparingly and only in
appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts
within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting their
mere errors. The Court said that it was, therefore, a case which
called for an interference by the Court of the Judicial
Commissioner and it acted quite properly in doing so.
24. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta [(1975)
1 SCC 858] this Court again reaffirmed that the power of
superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 being
extraordinary was to be exercised most sparingly and only in
appropriate cases. It said that the High Court could not, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with the
findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal
and that its function was limited to seeing that the subordinate
court or tribunal functioned within the limits of its authority and
that it could not correct mere errors of fact by examining the
evidence or reappreciating it. The Court further said that the
jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised, „as the
cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring
up an order or decision for rehearing of the issues raised in the
proceedings‟. The Court referred with approval the dictum of
Morris, L.J. in R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal
Tribunal, ex p Shaw [(1952) 1 All ER 122 : (1952) 1 KB 338
(CA)] .
25. In Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and
Appeals [AIR 1958 SC 398] this Court observed as under:
„It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-
judicial nature, are not greater than the powers under Article
226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226, the power of
interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the
ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But
under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference
is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits
of its authority.‟"
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
CONCLUSION
66. Hence, there is only a limit to the extent of powers which this
Court may exercise while entertaining the instant petitions. Without going
into the comprehensive evidence and material on record before the
learned Special Judge, the consideration if of the findings of the learned
Special Judge while passing the Order and whether there were any
inconsistencies, illegalities or errors apparent in passing the said Orders.
The learned Special Judge has framed charges against the accused in
accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Cr.P.C. and after appreciating the material before it. The record as well as
the facts and circumstances prima facie establish that the petitioners were
involved in the commission of the offences as alleged against them.
67. It is, therefore, found that after consideration of material before it,
the learned Special Judge-CBI-01, North West, Rohini, Delhi had passed
a well-reasoned Order and there is no illegality, unlawfulness or error
apparent on record while passing the impugned Order dated 23 rd October,
2018 and 29th October, 2018 in CBl vs. Narayan Diwakar etc. (Om
CGHS Ltd.) CBI No. 122/2016.
68. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, the roles played by them in the criminal
conspiracy and the reasons outlined in the impugned Order, this Court
does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the Order of the Court
below.
69. Accordingly, the instant petitions are dismissed for there being no
substantial ground for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for
challenging and setting aside the impugned Orders.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
70. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
71. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
APRIL 4, 2022
Aj/Ms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DAMINI YADAV
Signing Date:04.04.2022
18:53:42
