The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing forgery and fraud, and the need for the prosecution to have an opportunity to establish the culpability of the accused through evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Asha Menon, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) seeking the quashing of orders dated 6th August, 2020 and 11th March, 2022, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket District Court, Delhi (for short, “learned Trial Court”), in the case relating to FIR No. 422/2001, registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, Delhi under Sections 201/406/420/448/467/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

2. The FIR was registered by Naresh Kumar Pandey against the accused persons, being V.K. Jain and his sons, namely, Saurab Jain, Gaurav Jain and Manav Jain, the MCD officials, namely, Om Dutt Sharma and MMS Bhatnagar. Though the FIR had been also registered against K.C. Pandey, who was the brother of the complainant, charge-sheet was not filed against him as he expired on 15th February, 2003.

3. The allegations are that the property situated at 104/5, Ring Road, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi belonged to the father of the complainant, having received it on the basis of a compromise decree dated 10th August, 1992. After the father expired, the property was divided amongst the legal heirs on the basis of a Settlement and partitioned in the following manner:-

1. Ramesh Anand Pandey : 850 Sq. Yds.

2. Vijay Kumar Pandey : 1100 Sq. Yds.

3. Kamlesh Chand Pandey : 550 Sq. Yds.

4. Naresh Kumar Pandey : 650 Sq. Yds.

5. Rajesh Kumar Pandey : 850 Sq. Yds.

On 10th August, 1992, out of this share of 850 Sq. Yds., Rajesh Kumar Pandey transferred to his mother Smt. Kanti Devi, 300 Sq. Yds.. The criminal case is in respect of this 300 Sq. Yds..

4. Apparently, on 17th May, 1993, K.C. Pandey availed of a credit facility from the Bank of Madura Ltd. (now, “ICICI Bank”) for his company, M/s. Mega Marketing, for Rs. 10 lakhs by mortgaging the property. His mother became guarantor and had pledged her share for this loan. The original documents are with the Bank. Certain DRT proceedings have already been commenced in respect of that loan by the Bank, which are still pending.

5. According to the complainant, the accused persons had forged the Will and the Receipt purporting it to be of Smt. Kanti Devi. On the basis of these documents, the mutation was carried out in the MCD records by the MCD officials, despite an objection that had been filed by the complainant. After conclusion of the investigations, the charge-sheet was filed against all these accused persons, as noticed above, for the said offences.

6. The impugned order dated 6th August, 2020 directed framing of charge against accused Om Dutt Sharma, Rajesh Pandey, V.K. Jain (the petitioner herein), Gauran Jain, Saurab Jain and Manav Jain, for the offences under Sections 120-B/420 read with Section 120-B, Section 467 read with Section 120B IPC. Thereafter, on 11th March, 2022, charge was framed against these accused persons under Section 120B IPC; Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 467 read with Section 120B IPC.

7. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sheila Sebastian v. R Jawaharaj and Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 581, contended that when there was no forgery, no charge under Section 467 IPC could be framed. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi, (2003) 5 SCC 257, it was also contended that there could be no vicarious liability and so no charge under Section 120B IPC could be framed against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, there was no allegation against the petitioner to show that he was the one who had made the documents. It was also urged that there was no overt act ascribed to the petitioner and therefore, no offence under Section 420 IPC was made out. It was further submitted that the petitioner being 81 years of age ought not to be subjected to vexatious criminal prosecution on such vague pleas.

8. Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned AP