Delhi High Court
Ravi Raj @ Rav I Kumar vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi, Through Its ... on 25 July, 2024
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25th JULY, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.M.C. 380/2022 & CRL.M.A. 1724/2022
RAVI RAJ @ RAV I KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prakash Chander, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State
SI Gaurav Kumar, D-319, PS
Rajinder Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Order dated
30.11.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -02, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, dismissing the Revision Petition, being Criminal
Revision Petition No.83/2019, filed by the Petitioner herein against the
Order dated 31.07.2019, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, framing charges under Sections 417/419/468 IPC
against the Petitioner herein in FIR No.44/2009, dated 05.04.2009,
registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, for offences under Sections
419/420 IPC.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the present Petition, are that the present
FIR was registered on the complaint of one Nand Kishore, who is the Vice
Principal of Bal Bharti Public School, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. In the
complaint it is stated that Bal Bharti Public School, Rajinder Nagar, was the
centre for All India Pre Medical Examination, 2009 (Centre No. 2301) and a
case of impersonation was reported by the invigilator while verifying the
candidate - Raushan Chaturvedi S/o Sunil Chaturvedi, bearing Roll No.
2300561. It is stated that the photographs, signatures, and other entries as
per the admit card of Raushan Chaturvedi did not match. It is stated that on
further verification, the mother's name told by the candidate who appeared
in the examination was found different from the list supplied by the CBSE.
It is stated that on further interrogation, the candidate who appeared in the
examination for the actual candidate Raushan Chaturvedi, disclosed his
name as Ravi Raj S/o Sh. Tej Narain Prasad R/O Village- Basuli, P.S. Pipra
Bazar, P.O. Sumariya, Distt. Sapaul, Bihar Age-22 yrs, i.e. the Petitioner
herein. On the said complaint the present FIR was lodged. Charge-sheet has
been filed under Sections 419/420/468/417 IPC. In the chargesheet, it is
stated that the Petitioner herein disclosed that he lives in Patna and is
preparing for medical exams. The Petitioner further stated that he met with
Raushan Chaturvedi, who told him that he was also preparing for medical
examinations and his examination for the same was scheduled on
05.04.2009 at Bal Bahrti Public School. It is stated that the Petitioner asked
Raushan Chaturvedi about the pattern of examination and Raushan
Chaturvedi told the Petitioner that he had not prepared for the said exam and
that he is not taking this exam. It is stated that Raushan Chaturvedi offered
the Petitioner to take the exam in his place and handed over his admit card to
the Petitioner for taking the said exam in his place. It is stated that during the
course of investigation, documents of actual candidate Raushan Chaturvedi
were also obtained from the Bal Bharti School and specimen signature of the
Petitioner and the said Raushan Chaturvedi were taken and both were sent to
FSL Rohini for expert opinion.
3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide Order dated 31.07.2019
held that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 417/419/468 IPC
are made out against the Petitioner herein and accordingly charges were
framed. The said Order was challenged by the Petitioner before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge by filing a Criminal Revision Petition which has
been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Order dated
30.11.2021. It is this Order which is under challenge in the present Petition.
4. It is contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the
offences under Sections 417/419/468 IPC are not made out against the
Petitioner for the reason that the ingredients of the said Sections are not
made out against the Petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, the Petitioner has not committed the offence punishable under
Sections 417 and 419 IPC as he has not induced Raushan Chaturvedi to
deliver any property to him in lieu of sitting in the exam on his behalf. He
further states that the chargesheet does not disclose as to whom the
Petitioner has deceived and induced. He further states that the Petitioner has
not deceived any invigilator or the examination board to make them believe
that the Petitioner is the same person who was authorized to take the
examination. He further states that the offences under Section 468 IPC are
not made out against the Petitioner as he has not forged any documents.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also states that the offence was
committed on 05.04.2009 and the cognizance has been taken in 2019 by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He states that no cognizance ought to have
been taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for offences under
Sections 417 & 419 IPC as the punishment under the said offences is only
for three years.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material
on record.
6. At this juncture, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant Sections of
IPC for which the Petitioner has been charged and the same reads as under:
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to
"cheat".
416. Cheating by personation.--A person is said to
"cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to
be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one
person for or another, or representing that he or any
other person is a person other than he or such other
person really is.
Explanation.--The offence is committed whether the
individual personated is a real or imaginary person.
417. Punishment for cheating.--Whoever cheats shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine,
or with both.
xxx
419. Punishment for cheating by personation.--
Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property.
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person,
or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
xxx
Section 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document
or electronic record forged shall be used for the
purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either de-scription for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
7. This Court is not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel
for the Petitioner. A perusal of Section 415 IPC which is punishable under
Section 417 IPC and Section 416 IPC which is punishable under Section 419
IPC show that ingredients of cheating are made out. The Petitioner has
deceived the authorities by impersonating himself as Raushan Chaturvedi
and has attempted to take the examination. Charge-sheet has also been filed
against the Petitioner for offences under Section 420 IPC which is
punishable upto seven years for which there is no limitation prescribed for
taking cognizance. In view of the above, the argument of the learned
Counsel for the Petition cannot be accepted.
8. A reading of the abovementioned provisions shows that ingredients of
Section 468 IPC are made out against the Petitioner which is punishable
upto seven years. The Petitioner has signed on the papers for the purpose of
taking the examination for Raushan Chaturvedi and, therefore, the
ingredients of Section 468 IPC are attracted.
9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
Order framing charges and the Order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge.
10. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed, along with the pending
applications, if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JULY 25, 2024
Rahul
