CRL.REV.P. 199/2022

Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 26^th May, 2022

+

CRL.REV.P. 199/2022 and CRL.M.A. 6421/2022 (for stay)

VIJAY KUMAR JAIN

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. Sachin

Kumar, Advocates

Versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for the

State with Inspector Pankaj Kumar

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

Thispetition 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 6^th August, 2020 and 11^th

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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002059

CRL.REV.P. 199/2022

Page 2 of 8

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 15^th 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 10^th 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 10^th 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 17^th 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.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002059

CRL.REV.P. 199/2022

Page 3 of 8

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 6^th 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 11^th 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 whe