$~9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Delivered on 16^th August, 2021

+

CRL.REV.P. 117/2021, CRL.M.A.3804/2021

SUSHIL ARORA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Siddharth Luthra, Mr.Siddharth

Yadav, Senior Advocates with

Mr.Anuj

Chauhan,

Mr.M.N

Dudeja,

Ms.Ananya

De,

Mr.Anand,Mr.Abhishek Budhiraja

Mr.Aditya Mishra, Mr.Saifuddin

Shams, Mr.Krishna Datta Multani,

Mr.Akshay Kumar, Mr.Adityaa

Raju, Advocates.

versus

CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.Nikhil Goel, SPP, Mr.Vinay

Mathew, Advocate for CBI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Through Video Conferencing)

1.

This petition challenges the impugned order dated 28.10.2020

whereby the charge was directed to be framed against the petitioner. It

also challenges an order dated 30.01.2021 whereby the formal charges

were framed against the petitioner herein.

2.

The brief facts are on 31.12.1983 the society namely M/s.Anshika

Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. was formed. On 27.01.1993 it

was wound up. On 19.04.1999 an application was made to revive the said

society and ultimately on 28.01.2000 it was revived. The allegations are

2021:DHC:2494

of conspiracy to get the society revived so as to grab the land belonging

to it.

3.

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner the

petitioner herein has no role in the revival of the society or forgery of

documents, hence the charge must go.

4.

Vide an order dated 20.05.2021 of this Court the CBI/respondent

was directed to file a reply as to if there is any other evidence, besides the

handwriting expert report against this applicant. The allegations against

the applicant are he had signed documents at point Q-16, Q-139 and Q-

140 viz. a letter and an affidavit. It is argued GEQD report, signed by an

Assistant Government Examiner, even otherwise is not per se admissible

under Section 293 Cr.P.C. The section is as under:-

“293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.

2021:DHC:2494

(f) the Serologist to the Government.”

5.

It is argued the Assistant Government Examiner is not included

under sub section (4) of Section 293 Cr.P.C., hence his report is not

admissible in evidence and the CBI had rather failed to place on record

any notification to show this report would fall within the ambit of Section

293 Cr.P.C.

6.

It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner

the

witnesses

viz

PW-36

Amit

Saxena;

PW-58

Smt.Poonam.V.K.; PW-59 Murali N.Khemchandanil PW-60 Nitin Gulati

and PW-76 Sanjeev Nayyar do not provide any linkage with the

petitioner much less of any conspiracy. Their statements are read and

perused.

7.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon Sandeep

Dixit vs. State 2012 SCC Online Del 2430 which held as under:

and in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others vs. State of Gujarat and

Another (2020) 3 SCC 794 the Court held:

2021:DHC:2494

to quash the FIR I-194/2016 is to be allowed.”

andChennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Badam Pratapa Reddy (Dead)

Rahiman vs. State of Kerala 2014 SCC Online Kerala 23291; to further

support his argument.

8.

The learned counsel also referred to Parshnath Asthana vs. State

of Gujarat 2010 SCC Online Gujarat 2247 wherein the Court held:

covered within the meaning of Sec.293 of Cr.P.C.”

9.

Thus it is argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

the only evidence against the petitioner is an opinion evidence viz GEQD

report qua his signatures at point Q-16; Q-139 and Q-140 which would

not take the prosecution anywhere, at least not to his conviction, as is not

supported by statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and lastly such report

does not fall within the ambit of Section 293 Cr.P.C.

10.

Heard.

11.

As per the allegations the subject society was bought by co

accused Anil Arora from SP Saxena an