Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 2260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. B. Chaudhari
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. S. Walia
CRM-A No.1764-MA of 2014 (O&M)
Rajiv Mehta
v.
Rita Datta & Ors
{Decided on 27/07/2018}
Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sidharth Sanwaria, DAG, Haryana.
Forgery – False Affidavit – Every false statement does not necessary partake the character of a criminal offence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.420 – Cheating – Acquittal – Complainant alleged that his younger sister mortgaged their joint property and obtained loan from bank by falsely deposing that there was no encumbrance on the property and property was not involved in any litigation and thus cheated the bank in obtaining the loan – No offence of cheating is made out – Held;
(i) Entire amount of loan has already been paid to bank never came forward to make any claim that fraud was played on the bank or any forqery was played in relation to the documents submitted to them; and
(ii) Undisputedly, there was no partition of land between the parties at any point of time – Consequently, it could not be said which part of property would be allotted to which shareholder – Hence, both the parties were entitled to exercise their right over the joint property. (Para 11)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.467 – Forgery – False Affidavit – Acquittal – Accused (sister of complainant) allegedly gave false affidavit that there is no impediment in creating charge of bank despite injunction order – S.467 IPC held to be not applicable because the bank would be the aggrieved party to say that fraud was played on the bank and that they were induced to make payment of loan on the said alleged mortgage deeds but the bank does not have any grievance, obviously because it recovered its loan with interest from accused – Mens-rea is the sine qua non for any criminal offence. (Para 12)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.467 – Forgery – False Affidavit – Every false statement does not necessary partake the character of a criminal offence. (Para 15)
Mr. A. B. Chaudhari, J.- Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.08.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in criminal complaint No.550/1 of 2008 by which the trial Court held the respondent-Smt. Rita Datta not guilty of the offence charged against her and thus acquitted her, the present appeal has been filed against her acquittal.
Facts:
2. The appellant-Rajiv Mehta, the original complainant, and accused Smt. Rita Datta daughter of late Major Tilak Raj Mehta, are blood relatives. The appellant/complainant-Rajiv Mehta is the elder brother of accused Smt. Rita Datta, the only children of late Major Tilak Raj Mehta. The appellant/complainant Rajiv Mehta filed a private criminal complaint No.550/1 of 2008 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 193 IPC and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, against his real younger sister i.e. the respondent accused-Rita Datta. He stated in the complaint that the property measuring 134 kanals 15 marlas is situated in village Mandoli, Tehsil Jagadhri and District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent Smt.Rita Dutta has filed Civil Suit No.375 of 2007 for declaration that she was owner of the said property after the death of her mother Smt. Prem Mehta to the exclusion of appellant-Rajiv Mehta on the basis of alleged Will from her mother in her favour. She had also filed an application for stay in the suit in relation to restrain the complainant from cutting and removing the safeda and poplar trees from standing in the land and also from changing the existing nature of the suit land by way of alienation etc. against the appellant. On 23.10.2007 the civil Court passed an order in the presence of both the parties, directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till the next date and that the said order was extended from time to time. On 26.09.2008 the respondent had withdrawn the application for ad-interim injunction. Thus according to the complainant the status quo order remained in operation from 23.10.2007 till 26.09.2008.
3. The complainant then alleged that on 06.08.2008 the respondent Smt. Rita Datta executed mortgage deed No.2306 in relation to the land measuring 32 kanals out of the total land in favour of State Bank of Patiala, Yamuna Nagar for obtaining a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lac) and also executed another mortgage No.2307 dated 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 16-08-2018 11:39:34 ::: 06.08.2008 in respect of 16 kanal land out of the total land in favour of State Bank of Patiala, Yamuna Nagar for obtaining loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs). According to the complainant she had made a statement that the land was free from all encumbrances and was not involved in any litigation. It was then stated by the complainant that the respondent accused had made false representation before Registering Officer, Jagadhri for registration of two mortgage deeds in the same manner named above i.e. the land was free from all encumbrances and not involved in any litigation and thus she has committed offence under Section 82 of Indian Registration Act, for obtaining loan. She also committed a fraud with the bank by creating mortgage of property though involved in the litigation. Therefore, she committed offences under Sections 420, 467 & 468 IPC. She had also filed false affidavit to the same effect with the bank. The pre-charge evidence was recorded and the appellant examined himself and his witnesses i.e. CW-1 to CW-7 and he proved as many as 37 documents i.e. Exhibits C-1 to C-37. The trial appears to have commenced in the year 2008 and ended in 2014 with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Hence, this appeal against acquittal.
Arguments:
4. In support of the appeal against acquittal, the learned counsel for the appellant-Rajiv Mehta, vehemently argued that the trial Court clearly fell in
