Crl. M.C.No. 693/2016

Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on : June 20, 2016

+

CRL.M.C. 693/2016

STATE

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State

versus

BINA RAMANI

..... Respondent

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.

By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. read with

Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of discharge

dated 07.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Special

Judge, CBI-03, (PC Act) South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 493/2006 under Section

420/467/468/471/120B IPC was registered in P.S. Hauz Khas against

the respondent Ms. Bina Ramani (hereinafter at some places referred

as accused”). As per prosecution case, during investigation of Jessica

Lal murder case in FIR No.287/1999, Police Station Mehrauli, it was

revealed that accused Bina Ramani was running a Restro-Bar in the

name and style of “Once Upon a Time” without any valid license for

serving liquor. The owner of the said restaurant had simply obtained a

Crl. M.C.No. 693/2016

Page 2 of 9

license from MCD for running an eating house. The restaurant was

also registered with DCP (Licensing). It was found that the

photocopies of the relevant documents submitted by accused Bina

Ramani for obtaining license from Health Department of MCD for

running an eating house named “Once Upon a Time” at Mehrauli

Road, New Delhi i.e. Rent Receipts pertaining to property of 1990-91,

“No Objection Certificate” of the land lord dated 09.09.1997, Ration

Card and Bills of different shops, were forged. As per prosecution,

lease of the property was granted to accused Bina Ramani vide note

dated 08.05.1986 with specific condition that property would not be

used for running restaurant. In order to neutralize the effect of that

condition, accused prepared forged “No Objection Certificate: dated

09.09.1997 purportedly issued by one of its previous owner Sh. Diwan

Chand. As per prosecution, the date mentioned below the forged

signature of Sh. Diwan Chand on the “No Objection Certificate” was

in

the

handwriting

of

the

accused

George

Mailhot.

During

investigation, it was found that rent receipt was also forged to show

that the accused was running restaurant in 1990-91. The son and

nephew of Sh. Diwan Chand have confirmed the forged signature on

“No Objection Certificate” and rent receipts. It was also revealed

during investigation from the office of the concerned FSO that ration

card was not issued by the authorities concerned.

3.

Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed and after considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, vide order dated 14.01.2015,

learned CMM discharged the petitioner from all offences except for

Crl. M.C.No. 693/2016

Page 3 of 9

the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and directed to frame

the charge under Section 471 IPC against her. The State had preferred

the revision petition before the learned Additional Session Judge

which was dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2015. However, the oral

submission made on behalf of the respondent were treated as revision

on behalf of her and accordingly the respondent was discharged from

all the offences.

4.

Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

contended that in the revision preferred by the State, the oral

submissions made by the respondent were wrongly treated as revision

petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner and while dismissing the

revision petition filed by the State, the oral submissions made by the

respondent were allowed and she was discharged from all the

offences, which is totally perverse and uncalled for.

5.

It is further contended that the respondent had forged the

valuable security including NOC allegedly issued and signed by the

owner of the property to run the restaurant in the rented premises

which is punishable under Section 465 of IPC. In addition, on account

o