The court emphasized the importance of sufficient material for taking cognizance of an offence and rejected the argument of inordinate delay in filing the charge-sheet.

A.K. Pathak, J.:-- (Oral)

1. Both the writ petitions arise from the same FIR, thus, are disposed of together by this common order.

2. By way of present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), petitioners have challenged the order dated 30th November, 2012 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby cognizance of offences in the FIR No. 426/2009 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar has been taken.

3. FIR was registered pursuant to the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the complaint of Suresh Kumar and his brother Ramesh Kumar. It was alleged in the FIR that complainant had purchased a property bearing No. B-2/39, Paschim Vihar, Delhi on 3rd December, 1981 from the petitioners vide General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will etc., all dated 3rd December, 1981. Documents were executed by petitioner-Raghu Nath Singh in favour of the complainant. Property was purchased against consideration, inasmuch as, payment was acknowledged by way of a registered receipt. Even after the sale, petitioner-Babu Lal continued to occupy the suit property. Later on, petitioner-Babu Lal applied to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold in his name vide forged and fabricated documents, that is, Agreement to Sell, Special Power of Attorney, General Power of Attorney, Affidavits.

4. Investigation was conducted wherein statements of complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Documents were handed over by the complainant to the Investigating Officer. Complainant alleged that petitioner-Babu Lal had inserted his name in place of complainant-Ramesh Kumar in the Agreement to Sell dated 3rd December, 1981 and applied for conversion of the property form lease hold to free hold. It was further stated that on 24th March, 2009 petitioner-Raghu Nath Singh, who was initial owner of the property, had made a declaration in favour of complainant- Ramesh Kumar regarding execution of Agreement to Sell dated 3rd December, 1981 and also that he had received Rs,45,000/- as sale consideration from Ramesh Kumar in respect of the property ad measuring 125 sq yards vide receipt registered as document No. 9541, book No. IV Volume No. 849 on page No. 161 dated 3rd December, 1981 before the Sub- Registrar Delhi, inasmuch as, had executed duly notarized Agreement to Sell dated 3rd December, 1981in favour of Ramesh Kumar. It may be noted here that during the investigation, Babu Lal was asked to produce original documents including Agreement to Sell dated 3rd December, 1981 but he failed to produce the same. It is further revealed that two General Power of Attorney and three Special Power of Attorney were executed by the petitioner-Raghu Nath Singh in favour of petitioner-Babu Lal, out of which one General Power of Attorney was an unregistered document while other General of Power of Attorney was duly registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Noida, (U.P.). One Will and Receipt dated 3rd December, 1981 executed by petitioner-Raghu Nath Singh in favour of complainant-Ramesh Kumar were found registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate. Agreement to Sell was not found registered. Investigating Officer also collected documents pertaining to the property in question from the Delhi Development Authority, which included Agreement to Sell dated 3rd December, 1981. These documents were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Rohini on 8th April, 2011 and its report was obtained on 13th March, 2012, according to which alterations were made and some erasing were noticed on the documents. Charge-sheet was then filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi who has taken cognizance of the offence vide the order impugned in these petitions filed after about two years.

5. It may be pointed