The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the legal provisions of forgery under IPC 463/471, emphasizing the elements of deceit and injury to the person deceived, and the absence of essential ingredients of the alleged offences in the present case.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 341 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant seeking setting aside of the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the learned ADJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in PC No. 01/2019 and the consequent proceedings emanating there from.

2. The genesis of the appeal lies in probate proceeding filed by one Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel before the concerned Court. In support of the petition, affidavits of two witnesses, namely Smt. Sushila Kumar Gupta & Smt. Sunita Goyal, were filed.

During the course of the proceedings, Smt. Sushila Kumar Gupta was examined as PW-1 and she tendered her above affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. When Smt. Sunita Goyal appeared to tender her affidavit, it was enquired as to whether her affidavit dated 15.10.2020 (Ex.PW-2/A) bore her signatures, to which she answered in the negative. Consequently, statement of Smt. Sunita Goyal was recorded to the said effect as PW-2 and she was asked to sign the same.

3. The affidavit in question was notarized by Notary Sh. Debajyoti Behuria, at which time the identification of the deponent, namely Smt. Sunita Goyal, was done by the present appellant. The counsel who had filed the said affidavit, namely Ms. Riya Thomas, Advocate, denied preparing the affidavit of Smt. Sunita Goyal. Vide order dated 16.10.2020, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Counsel on record i.e., Sh. Apoorv Aggarwal, who tendered his apology before the Court on 21.10.2020.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that an affidavit bearing forged signatures of Smt. Sunita Goyal was filed in the Court on behalf of the petitioner/Vijay Kumar Goel and thereby, prima facie offences under Sections 463/471 IPC appeared to have been committed. Accordingly, an inquiry was directed to be conducted. A complaint in this regard was also made to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi District under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the appellant was named as one of the accused persons.

5. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that before passing the impugned order, although the Trial Court had issued a Show Cause Notice on 16.10.2020 to the main counsel, enquiring as to why action not be taken against him for filing a forged affidavit before the Court, no such Show Cause Notice was ever given to the present appellant. Without seeking any response from her, the Trial Court erroneously included the name of the appellant in the list of accused persons. It was submitted that the appellant was not even present before the Court on the date of the passing of the impugned order i.e., 21.10.2020, as her paternal grandfather had expired a day prior in Ghaziabad, U.P. and pursuant to the same, the appellant had gone to Ludhiana, where the cremation was to take place on 21.10.2020. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel drew attention of the Court to the cremation certificate placed on record of the appellant’s grandfather, issued by Mukti Dham, Civil Lines, Sudhar Sabha, Ludhiana-141001.

6. Without prejudice to the foregoing contentions, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the aforesaid probate proceedings were filed before the concerned Court in the year 2019, whereas the present appellant, being a fresh law graduate had joined the office of Sh. Apoorv Aggarwal only in June, 2020. The appellant’s name neither figured in the Vakalatnama nor she had appeared in the said probate proceedings at any point.

7. It was further submitted that the appellant had only identified Smt. Sunita Goyal at the time of notarisation on 15.10.2020 and it is not the allegation that she had signed the affidavit in question as the deponent. Lastly, it was submitted that from a perusal of the facts of the case, no offence under Sections 463/471 IPC is made out to warrant registration of complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the appellant.

8. In the course of present proceedings, on 25.