Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Bansal vs State Of Haryana on 30 July, 2021
1
CRM-M-25513-2021 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
125
CRM-M-25513-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.07.2021
Anil Bansal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Pawan Sankhla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
(proceedings conducted through video conferencing)
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing order dated
23.09.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby a revision directed against
order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned JMIC, Faridabad,
wherein charges were ordered to be framed in respect of offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, has been
dismissed.
2. The allegations, in nut-shell, as per the FIR dated 03.10.2015
(Annexure P-4) are to the effect that Tehsildar -cum- Sub Registrar,
Faridabad made a written complaint to the police intimating that he
had come to know that in several cases some pages of the
registered documents have been replaced. The reason for such
substitution of pages was alleged to be that the original documents,
1 of 6
CRM-M-25513-2021 (O&M)
which were registered, duly fell within the ambit of the relevant
Acts and Instructions and could be duly registered, but by way of
such tampering/substitution of pages, some properties which could
not have been registered were shown to be duly registered. In the
said complaint, following 3 instances were also mentioned:
Date of Name of Name of Drafted by Comments Apparent
registration the Seller the reason for
and Deed Buyers change
No.
24.08.2015 Anil Smt. Mr. M.K. When the document Sub-division
/ 8631 Bansal s/o Santosh Gaur, was registered, the of floor is not
Ram Bala w/o Advocate, property that was permissible.
Kishore Sh. Prem District being conveyed was Hence, initial
Bansal r/o Prakash Court, entire first floor, documents was
House Nagia Sector-12, after the presented to
No.1055, and Mr. Faridabad registration, the mislead the
Sainik Gaurav pages depicting the registration
Colony, Nagia, property has been authority.
Sector-49, H.No.13/ changed and now
Faridabad 140 Bali the documents
Nagar, states that the
Palwal property conveyed
is first floor (Front
Portion)
24.08.2015 Balraj s/o Jyoti w/o Mr. M.K. When the document The Khasra
/8612 Ram Manoj Gaur, was presented the No.9/2 lies in
Narayan Singh r/o Advocate, property depicted unapproved
r/o Village RZ- District was Khasra No.5/2. area and hence
Pali, 200/17 Court, After the NOC would
Tehsil & Gali Sector-12, registration, the have been
District No.11, Faridabad pages depicting the mandatory.
Faridabad Durga property has been
Park, changed and how
New the documents
Delhi states that the
property conveyed
is Khasra No.9/2
24.08.2015 Balraj s/o Seema Mr. M.K. When the document The Khasra
/8615 Ram w/o Gaur, was presented the No.9/2 lies in
Narayan Ranjeet Advocate, property depicted unapproved
r/o Village r/o G- District was Khasra No.5/2. area and hence
Pali, 1/284, Court, After the NOC would
Tehsil & Ambedk Sector-12, registration, the have been
District ar Nagar, Faridabad pages depicting the mandatory.
Faridabad Madan property has been
Giri, changed and how
Devli, the documents
South states that the
Delhi property conveyed
is Khasra No.9/2
3. The matter was enquired into by the police and a challan was
presented against 4 accused including the petitioner, namely, Anil
Bansal.
2 of 6
CRM-M-25513-2021 (O&M)
4. Learned JMIC, Faridabad, upon considering the documents on
record and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, passed an order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P-9) for
framing of charges against the accused/petitioner in respect of
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision
petition in the Court of Sessions at Faridabad, but the said revision
petition also came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2020
(Annexure P-1), which has been assailed by way of filing the
instant petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant
case, the charges have been framed for the offences which are not
actually made out and that at best even if the allegations are taken
to be correct, though the petitioner seriously disputes the same, it
would only be an offence under Section 465 IPC, which would be
made out and that no offence under Sections 467, 468 or 471 IPC
can be said to be made out. Learned counsel has further submitted
that in fact even offence under Section 420 IPC would not be
attracted, as it is not a case where any kind of property has been
delivered to anyone on the basis of alleged forgery. It has further
been submitted that the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate
Court did not appreciate the ratio of judgment rendered in Tarsem
Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab & another, [CRM-M-301-
2013 decided on 16.09.2019] and that when there is nothing
contained in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to suggest the
commission of the aforesaid offences, the trial Court on its own
3 of 6
CRM-M-25513-2021 (O&M)
could not have proceeded to frame charges in respect of such
offences.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also
considered the submissions raised before this Court.
8. It is the specific case of the prosecution that in several cases where
sale deeds had been registered in respect of properties which could
have been duly sold or registered, the same (sale deeds) were
subsequently tampered with and the relevant pages containing the
particulars of the property were changed and the description of
those properties was made, which otherwise could not have been
legally got registered. Petitioner Anil Bansal is also alleged to
have sold 'First Floor' of his property i.e. Plot No.249. However,
subsequently by way of substitution it was shown that only 'front
portion of the First Floor' was sold, whereas the division of the
First Floor was not allowed. By way of such act, the petitioner had
not only violated the prescribed conditions and instructions, but
had virtually deceived the authorities by way of tampering with
material document/s. It could even be a case that the petitioner
stood to gain by selling his property in parts. At this stage, it
would be apposite to refer to Section 420 IPC, which reads as
under:
"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
4 of 6
CRM-M-25513-2021 (O&M)
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
9. A perusal of the aforesaid definition would show that any alteration
in any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or
sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security is also fall within the ambit of cheating.
10. Similarly, since substitution of pages of a sale deed would amount
to tampering and forging the original sale deed, it is not just
offence under Section 465 IPC, which would be attracted, but the
graver offences punishable under Sections 467 & 468 IPC would
also get attracted as the forgery was of valuable security and for
the purpose of cheating.
11. The mere fact that the Investigating Officer at the time of
presentation of charge-sheet does not specifically mention a
particular offence would not prevent the Court from looking into
the entire facts and frame charges for such offence/s which are
found prima facie to be made out from the facts of the case.
12. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any ground for
interfering in the orders of the trial Court or of the Revisional
Court and the same are hereby upheld.
13. Before parting with this order, this Court feels the necessity to
direct the trial Court to examine all the documents concerned and
to ensure that correct date of FIR is mentioned in all the documents
since some of the documents are found to be bearing the date of
FIR as '03.10.2015', while some other documents bear the date as
5 of 6
CRM-M-25513-2021 (O&M)
'08.09.2015'. Necessary corrections be carried out so that there is
no confusion at a later stage.
14. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
30.07.2021 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
