The delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned, and the criminal case could not be quashed in the manner done by the first appellate court.

1. The petition at hand assails the judgment dated 03.05.2010 of the court of Additional District Judge in appeal (RCA No.86/2009/07) that was instituted by the first respondent on 02.07.2007 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2004 passed by Civil Judge in civil suit (198/1985) of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein was challenged. The civil suit (No.198/1985) had been instituted by Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Late Shri Ram Nath Gupta seeking the relief of permanent injunction. It is stated that, on his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the first respondent Rakesh Kumar was impleaded as fourth defendant. The property bearing Nos.807 & 808, Katra Hiddu, Farash Khana, Delhi was the subject-matter of the said suit.

2. In the course of the proceedings in the afore-said suit whereby relief of permanent injunction had been sought against Delhi Telephones, the petitioner herein is stated to have then claimed that he was a tenant in the portion of the property in which the said first respondent (fourth defendant in the suit) was claiming certain interest. Against such background, the plaintiff of the case moved an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on 30.04.1987, inter alia, alleging that the first respondent (fourth defendant in the suit) had used certain false and fabricated documents in the nature of ration card, for claiming ownership of property bearing No.807 and thereby obtaining installation of a telephone connection.

3. The suit was decided by judgment dated 31.08.2004 of the Civil Judge also disposing of the said application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. While the suit was decreed to the effect that the defendants (which included General Manager Delhi Telephones) were restrained from allotting or installing a telephone connection in the suit property in favour of the said first respondent (fourth defendant in the suit), the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was also allowed on the basis of finding that the documents in question were forged.

4. The Civil Judge, in the wake of his aforesaid decision, lodged a complaint in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C. on 31.08.2004 and presented it before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Delhi.

The record would show that on the basis of further directions passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, first information report (FIR) No.381/2004 came to be registered by police station S. Mandi and taken up for investigation into the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It may further be noted that investigation was carried out into the said FIR and upon conclusion of such investigation the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 25.05.2007 was submitted before the CMM making a request for the said first respondent Rakesh Kumar to be summoned and tried for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The documents on record further reveal that on the basis of said report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (charge sheet), the CMM, by his order dated 06.08.2008, found charge made out for all the said offences which were accordingly framed and the said Rakesh Kumar put on trial, the case having been adjourned for prosecution evidence to be adduced. A perusal of the charges framed on 06.08.2008, a copy whereof has been submitted with the paper book reveals that the gravamen of the charge of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC was that the said Rakesh Kumar had produced, around January, 1980, photocopy of ration card, submitting it to the officials of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) after tampering with the same in order to obtain a telephone connection in his name, this also being the sum and substance of the accusations leading to the charges being framed under Sections 468/471 IPC.

5. The first respondent preferred appeal (RCA No.86/2009/07) on 02.07.2007, almost three years after the judgment and decree dated 31.08.200