Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 15629
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
AJAY CHOPRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE & ORS. – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-5671/2019
Charges of cheating and forgery require clear evidence of intent to deceive; mere involvement in a conspiracy is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 201 read with Section 120B - Quashing of order - Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 discharged of offences under Sections 420 and 468, while charges under Sections 467, 471, 474, and 201 upheld - No evidence to establish cheating by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner - The court emphasized that mere involvement in a conspiracy does not suffice for charges of forgery and cheating without evidence of intent to deceive. (Paras 11, 12, 26, 30)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 227 and 228 - Discharge and framing of charges - The court must evaluate whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, without delving into the merits of the case. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that his sister forged his signature to sell property to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who then mortgaged it without full payment. The ASJ discharged Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of certain charges, finding no evidence of cheating.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the ASJ's decision, noting insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had cheated the petitioner or conspired to do so.
Issues: Whether there was sufficient evidence to maintain charges of cheating and forgery against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for charges under Sections 420 and 468, there must be clear evidence of intent to deceive and that mere involvement in a conspiracy does not suffice.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 05.08.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CR No. 204905/2016 titled ‘Vikas Garg &Ors. vs. State.’
2. By impugned order, the learned ASJ discharged Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of offences under Sections 420/468 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and upheld the charges framed under Sections 467/471/474 read with Section 120B of the IPC, and Section 201 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
3. The FIR in the present case was filed on a complaint given by the petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of the ground floor, and first floor of property bearing no. 202, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi (hereafter ‘subject property’). It is alleged that on 22.09.2008, an employee of the HDFC Bank visited the subject property, when the petitioner was present, for verification of loan of the buyer of the home. It is alleged that the petitioner was able to get a copy of the sale deed from the said employee.
4. It is alleged that thereafter, the petitioner learnt that his sister, namely Seema Malhotra, in connivance with her husband, Joginder Malhotra, had forged the petitioner’s signature, and had also allegedly prepared a GPA in her favour. It is further alleged that upon inquiries, the petitioner learnt that accused Seema Malhotra on the basis of the said forged GPA, had sold the ground floor of the subject property to Respondent No. 2, and first floor to Respondent No. 3 by way of sale deed both allegedly registered on 09.06.2008 for a consideration of ₹47 lakhs each. Consequently, the subject FIR was registered.
5. During the investigations, a copy of the GPA so obtained from the Registrar Office was sent to FSL to verify who signed the said d GPA. In terms of the FSL report, the GPA was allegedly found to be a forged document. It is alleged that the inquiry carried out revealed the possibility of there being some mischief being carried out in inserting a false entry in the peshi register of 01.11.2004. It is alleged that the investigation revealed that the alleged GPA was not found to be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, rather, another GPA executed by one Subhash Kumar was found registered on the same registration number. It is further alleged, that as per the FSL report, the signature of the petitioner on the alleged GPA was found to be forged, however, the signatures of accused Seema Malhotra, and attesting witnesses were found to be genuine.
6. It is alleged that thereafter the concerned stamp vendor also stated that he had not issued the stamp paper that was used for the alleged fake GPA.
7. As regards Respondent Nos. 2-3, the investigations carried out revealed that Respondent Nos. 2-3 had allegedly purchased two floors of the subject property for a total consideration of ₹94 lakhs. It is alleged that however, only a consideration for a sum of ₹44 lakhs was paid. It is alleged that the outstanding sum of ₹50 lakhs was allegedly given by way of cheques which got dishonoured. It is alleged that thereafter Respondent Nos. 2-3 got the subject property mutated in their names with MCD. It is further alleged that Respondent Nos. 2-3 mortgaged the ground floor of the subject property with HDFC Bank in September-October 2009 against a loan of ₹1.5 crores, however, at that time, Respondent Nos. 2-3 had only made part payment, and had not made full payment in respect of the subject property.
8. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘CMM’), South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 08.07.2016 heard arguments regarding framing of charges. Subsequently, vide order dated 16.07.2016, the learned CMM framed charges under Sections 420/467/468/471/474 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC against Respondent Nos. 2-3. The learned CMM, while hearing the argument on charge, noted that Respondent Nos. 2
