Delhi District Court
Gurukamal Singh vs Gurujeet Singh on 15 April, 2025
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 292/2023
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-004122-2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Gurkamal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Kirpal Singh,
R/o C-62-A, Shivaji Park,
West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 .... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)
2. Gurjeet Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Surinder Singh,
R/o C-62-A, Shivaji Park,
West Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026 .... Respondents
Date of institution of the revision petition : 16/05/2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 06/03/2025
Date of judgment : 15/04/2025
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:43:06 -0100
CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 1/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall
conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) filed by the revisionist against the order
dated 13/02/2023 (‘hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’)
passed by Sh. Anshul Mehta, Ld. MM-01, West District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No. 241/2012 PS Punjabi Bagh
u/s 420/468/471/120-B/34 IPC titled as ” State Vs. Jatinder Kaur
& Ors. ” thereby the respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh was
discharged.
In the present revision petition, the revisionist has
prayed to call, examine and peruse the Trial Court record and to
set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 13/02/2023 passed by
Ld. Trial Court.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the
present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition
are that the revisionist is the complainant in case FIR No. 241/2012
PS Punjabi Bagh. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the
direction of the Ld. M.M. u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused
Jatinder Kaur, Anupama and Gurjeet Singh. In the aforesaid FIR,
there are very specific allegations against every accused. After
investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO. From the charge-
sheet and the documents annexed with the application u/s 156(3)
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:43:18 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 2/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
Cr.P.C., a well-planned conspiracy and common intention of the
respondent no.2/accused in preparation of the forged and
fabricated documents are prima-facie established. In a well
planned conspiracy, the respondent no.2 in furtherance of common
intention got lodged the NCR bearing No.838/2010 on 10/06/2010
through his mother Jatinder Kaur. To execute their conspiracy, the
respondent no.2, his mother and sister have prepared forged and
fabricated documents such as G.P.A., Agreement to Sell, Receipt,
Affidavit and Possession Letter of the property of the revisionist
stating therein that on 02/02/1996, Kirpal Singh had sold the said
property for Rs.20,00,000/-. Before preparing the said forged
documents, co-accused Anupama had applied on 19/02/2010
before Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, New Delhi for getting the sale
deeds of property No.C-62A, Shivaji Park, through which Kirpal
Singh had purchased the said property from its previous owner in a
well-planned clear conspiracy. In the application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C., the revisionist had filed one complaint dated 24/12/2010
lodged by one Rajesh Arora to the Commissioner of Police, ITO,
New Delhi against the accused persons and in the said complaint,
it is specifically mentioned that firstly Anupama alongwith her
mother Jatinder Kaur and brother Gurjeet Singh made a plan to
grab the property of her own maternal uncle Gurkamal Singh, who
is now staying in USA and she prepared a fake agreement to sell in
favour of her mother Jatinder Kaur duly attested from Notary
Public for H.No.C-62A, First Floor, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi and after this, got prepared a fake Will from her mother
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:43:26 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 3/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
for the same portion of the said house in her favour and also
prepared fake document of sale deed in her favour on the full
portion of H.No.C-62-A, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi
from the concerned Registering Authority with the intention to sell
the entire house to some other person without taking into
consideration that the Court has already passed an order of status
quo the said property. Respondent no.2 alongwith other co-accused
in a well-planned conspiracy and in furtherance of their common
intention, prepared forged General Power of Attorney by accused
Jatinder Kaur in favour of her daughter Anupama in which the
respondent no.2 Gurjeet Singh is the attesting witness, who is
solely in possession and enjoying the property and he is alone
contesting SLP (Civil) No. 18148/2016 pending before Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India arising out of order of demolition of
unauthorised construction in H.No.C-62A, First Floor, Shivaji
Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. RFA No.509/2012 is pending
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi arising out of suit filed by
the revisionist for recovery of possession of premises bearing
H.No.C-62A, First Floor, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
The said GPA stated to be registered on 23/07/2010 with the Sub-
Registrar-IIA, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. From the above facts and
circumstances, it is prima-facie proved that the respondent no.2 is
not mainly an attesting witness of the Will and GPA dated
23/07/2010 but he is the main instrumental person of this
conspiracy of preparing the said false documents in order to grab
the property of the revisionist, hence, impugned order is totally
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:43:31 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 4/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
perverse and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
Merely being a witness of the Will and GPA is different from
involving in a deep-rooted conspiracy in preparing of the said
documents. Prior to filing of the complaint by the revisionist on
25/07/2011 before the SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh, Rajesh Arora had
already filed the complaint dated 24/12/2010 before the
Commissioner of Delhi Police, DCP and ACP concerned as well as
SHO of P.S. Punjabi Bagh describing the manner of conspiracy in
preparing the forged and fabricated Will and GPA of the property
of the revisionist. Conspiracy of the respondent no.2 prima-facie
appears in other manner also because the respondent no.2 is the
present and ultimate beneficiary of said false and fabricated
documents and is enjoying the property as on date on the basis of
forged and fabricated documents prepared by them in a well-
planned conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention
to grab the property of the revisionist. The observations of the Ld.
Trial Court that the accused/respondent no.2 Gurjeet Singh is not
even the beneficiary of the said Will and not the witness to any of
the prima-facie false documents pertaining to the ownership of the
property in question i.e. GPA, Agreement to sell, etc. and the
observation of the Ld. Trial Court that no specific allegations are
there against the accused Gurjeet Singh with regard to his role in
forging the documents, is totally against the material available on
the record. Revisionist has duly explained the manner in which the
accused persons in a well-planned conspiracy got prepared the
forged and fabricated documents. From the above-mentioned
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:43:38 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 5/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
facts and circumstances, the impugned order is bad in law and on
facts and the same is liable to be set-aside. The observation of the
Ld. Trial Court that the accused Gurjeet Singh was the witness to a
registered Will dated 23/07/2010 pertaining to the property in
question and further observation that the accused Gurjeet Singh is
not even the beneficiary of the said Will are totally incorrect and
against the facts and material on record. Respondent no.2 is the
prime and sole beneficiary of the said false document because he
as on date is enjoying the property in question and living free in
that same property. Hence, the observation vide which the
respondent no.2 was discharged by the Ld. MM is totally against
the facts and material available on record, besides the impugned
order is a cryptic order, which deserves to be set-aside. The
observation of Ld. MM that a witness is only liable to the extent
that the signature on the document are put before him and the same
is not false, is totally against the manner in which a well planned
and in a deep rooted conspiracy accused Gurjeet Singh along with
co-accused prepared false and fabricated documents not only in
order to grab the property of the revisionist but also on the basis of
the said false document further cheated and defrauded other
persons such as Satish Diwan, Amit Dahiya, etc. The further
observation of the Ld. Trial Court that a witness is not liable for the
contents of the documents is not correct in this case because the
accused Gurjeet Singh and his sister Anupama are the master mind
in preparation of the said false and fabricated documents. Ld. Trial
Court has passed the impugned order on conjectures and surmises
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:43:45 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 6/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
and the same is liable to be set-aside. Ld. Trial Court while passing
the impugned order has not applied its judicial mind but passed the
same in a mechanical and routine manner. The impugned order
passed by the Ld. Trial Court is contrary to the settled principles of
criminal law. The impugned order suffers from many other
illegalities and infirmities, which cannot be cured. No other similar
criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the
impugned order in any Court of law.
3. This Court heard the arguments on the present
revision petition advanced by Ld. counsel for the revisionist, Ld.
Addl. PP for the State/respondent no.1 and Ld. counsel for the
respondent no.2. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is not
interlocutory order and the present revision petition against the
impugned order is maintainable and impugned order is liable to be
set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision
petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
respondent no.2 that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned
order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present
revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the revisionist in support of his
contentions has relied upon the following case laws:-
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:43:51 -0100
CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 7/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
(a) Manjit Singh Virdi V. Hussain Mohammed
Shattaf {(2023) 7 SCC 633}
(b) Manendra Prasad Tiwari V. Amit Kumar
Tiwari & Anr. {2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057}
(c) M.E. Shivalingamurthy V. Central Bureau of
Investigation {(2020) 2 SCC 768}
(d) State of Rajasthan V. Ashok Kumar Kashyap
{(2021) 11 SCC 191}
(e) State of Himachal Pradesh V. Krishan Lal
Pardhan & Ors. {(1987) 2 SCC 17}
(f) Sarika Dinesh Rathi V. State of Maharashtra
& Ors. {2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1798}
{2022 (2) Criminal CC 726}
4. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist
has challenged the order dated 13/02/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
“13.02.2023
Present: Ld. APP for state.
Sh. B.S Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for
complainant.
Sh. Shyam Kumar, Ld. Counsel for
accused Gurjeet Singh.
Today matter is fixed for the orders
on the point of charge. Arguments have been
advanced by both the parties. Before proceeding
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:43:57 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 8/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
further, It is pertinent to mention here that the
charge-sheet in the present matter was filed
against the three accused persons namely Jatinder
Kaur, Gurjeet Singh and Anupama @ Jolly.
Proceedings against accused
Jatinder kaur have already been abated vide order
dated 15.10.2018 and accused Anupama @ Jolly
was declared PO vide order dated 15.03.2014.
Therefore, the present matter proceeded only
against the accused Gurjeet.
It is generally alleged by the
complainant that as a part of the conspiracy,
Gurjeet Singh alongwith other accused persons
have committed forgery of certain documents
pertaining to the ownership of the property
bearing No. C-62A Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi.
It is pertinent to note that the main
and specific allegations are against the accused
No. 1 Jatinder Kaur and Anupama. The only
specific allegation against the accused Gurjeet
Singh is that he was a witness to a registered will
dated 23.07.2010 pertaining to the property in
question. It is further pertinent to note that the
accused Gurjeet Singh is not even the beneficiary
of the said will. Also, the accused Gurjeet Singh
is not the witness to any of the prima-facie forged
documents pertaining to the ownership of the
property in question i.e. the GPA, agreement to
sell etc. Lastly, no specific allegations are there
against the accused Gurjeet Singh with regard to
his role in forging the documents. Also in the
complaint, it is alleged that the brain behind the
criminal acts is accused Anupama.
As far as the signatures of the
accused Gurjeet Singh on the will as a witness is
concerned, a witness is only liable to the extent
that the signatures on the documents are put
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:02 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 9/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
before him and the same are not forged. Further a
witness is not liable for the contents of the
documents. It is not the case of the prosecution
that the signatures of accused Jatinder Kaur on
the will dated 23.07.2010 are forged.
In view of the observation and
discussion above, the court is of the opinion that
at this stage, no offence is made out against the
accused Gurjeet Singh.
Accordingly, accused Gurjeet Singh
is hereby discharged.
With respect to the accused
Anupama @ Jolly, since she has already been
declared PO, let the present file be consigned to
Record Room to be revived as and when any
information regarding the accused Anupama @
Jolly comes on record.
(Anshul Mehta)
MM-01 (West)/THC: Delhi
13.02.2023″
5. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is
reproduced as under:-
Section 397:- Calling for records to exercise
powers of revision: (1) The High Court or
any Sessions Judge may call for and
examine the record of any proceeding before
any inferior Criminal Court situate within its
or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of
satisfying itself or himself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed,
and as to the regularity of any proceedings of
such inferior Court, and may, when calling for
such record, direct that the execution of any
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:09 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 10/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
sentence or order be suspended, and if the
accused is in confinement, that he be released
on bail or on his own bond pending the
examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates, whether
Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising
original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be
deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge
for the purposes of this sub-section and of
section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by
sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in
relation to any interlocutory order passed in
any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has
been made by any person either to the High
Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further
application by the same person shall be
entertained by the other of them.
6. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it
manifest that Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties
to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court before
the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as
concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the
Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that
Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision
conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be
exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal,
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:16 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 11/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created
by the legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain
revision against an interlocutory order.
The term “interlocutory order” as mentioned in
section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or
temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights
or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple
interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be
considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that
interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in
view of the express bar imposed under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can
pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that
in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision
jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or
conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an
interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision
jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court
can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory
order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in
nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the
proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
7. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as ” Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr.” {(1977) 4
SCC 137} that:- Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:22 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 12/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
“The main question which falls for determination
in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the
term “interlocutory order” as appearing in sub-
section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision
of such an order by the High Court. The term
“interlocutory order” is a term of well-known legal
significance and does not present any serious
difficulty. It has been used in various statutes
including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters
Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In
Webster’s New World Dictionary “interlocutory”
has been defined as an order other than final
decision. Decided cases have laid down that
interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those
which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties
concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that
the term “interlocutory order” in Section 397(2) of
the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense
and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely
denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary
nature which do not decide or touch the important
rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order
which substantially affects the right of the accused,
or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be
said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:27 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 13/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
revision to the High Court against that order,
because that would be against the very object
which formed the basis for insertion of this
particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973
Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning
witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for
bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid
of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount
to interlocutory orders against which no revision
would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code.
But orders which are matters of moment and which
affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a
particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be
interlocutory order so as to be outside the
purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court”.
It was also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as ” V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I.” (AIR 1980 SC
962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the
rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit
or the trial is an interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to
be explained, in contradistinction to a final order.
In other words, if an order is not a final order, it
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:32 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 14/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the
English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the
order is decided in one way, it may terminate the
proceedings but if decided in another way, then the
proceedings would continue; because, in our
opinion, the term ‘interlocutory order’ in the
Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much
wider sense so as to include even intermediate or
quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court
discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a
final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights
of the parties and puts an end to the controversy
and thereby terminates the entire proceedings
before the court so that nothing is left to be done
by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal
against an interlocutory order the accused is not
left without any remedy because in suitable cases,
the accused can always move this Court in its
jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution
even against an order framing charges against the
accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not
allowing an appeal against an order framing
charges, the Act works serious injustice to the
accused.
It was also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as “Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. V. Fazru” {(2004) 13
SCC 269} that:-
“Wharton’s Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:37 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 15/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
interlocutory order thus:
“An interlocutory order or judgment is one made
or given during the progress of an action, but which
does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties.”
“Thus, summing up the natural and logical
meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion
is inescapable that an order which does not
terminate the proceedings or finally decides the
rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order.
In other words, in ordinary sense of the term, an
interlocutory order is one which only decides a
particular aspect or a particular issue or a
particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but
which does not however conclude the trial at all.”
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of
criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in case titled as “Girish Kumar Suneja V.
Central Bureau of Investigation” {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was
held that :-
“15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section
397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on
the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction,
this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-
section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition
on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:43 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 16/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is
the nature of orders in respect of which a court can
exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court
can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory.
There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a
court can exercise its revision jurisdiction – that is
in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction.
There is equally no doubt that in respect of an
interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its
revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate
order is concerned, the court can exercise its
revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory
order.
21. The concept of an intermediate order
was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs.
State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a
final order and an interlocutory order. This
decision lays down the principle that an
intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in
nature but when reversed, it has the effect of
terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting
in a final order. Two such intermediate orders
immediately come to mind – an order taking
cognizance of an offence and summoning an
accused and an order for framing charges. Prima
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:48 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 17/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but
when an order taking cognizance and summoning
an accused is reversed, it has the effect of
terminating the proceedings against that person
resulting in a final order in his or her favour.
Similarly, an order for framing of charges if
reversed has the effect of discharging the accused
person and resulting in a final order in his or her
favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one
which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings
would terminate but if passed in another way, the
proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and
Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel V. State
of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed
challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance
of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel case, SCC
p.201, para11)
“11. ….. It is now well-nigh settled
that in deciding whether an order
challenged is interlocutory or not
as for Section 397 (2) of the Code,
the sole test is not whether such
order was passed during the interim
stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of
Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:44:56 –
0100
CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 18/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v.
Uttam). The feasible test is whether
by upholding the objections raised
by a party, it would result in
culminating the proceedings, if so
any order passed on such objections
would not be merely interlocutory in
nature as envisaged in Section
397(2) of the Code. In the present
case, if the objection raised by the
appellants were upheld by the Court
the entire prosecution proceedings
would have been terminated. Hence,
as per the said standard, the order
was revisable.”
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that
while the appellants might have an entitlement
(not a right) to file a revision petition in the High
Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in
any event, the High Court is under no obligation to
entertain a revision petition – such a petition can be
rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is
inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so
only against a final order or an intermediate order,
namely, an order which if set aside would result in
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:01 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 19/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it,
there appear to be only two such eventualities
of a revisable order and in any case only one such
eventuality is before us. Consequently the result of
para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the
entitlement of the appellants to file a revision
petition in the High Court is taken away and
thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising
the extraordinary discretionary power available
under Section 397 Cr.P.C.”
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case
titled as ” Neelam Mahajan and Anr. V. The State & Ors.” {(2016)
229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
“…….. In this regard catena of judgments of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has settled the
legal principle while holding that the meaning of
the two words “final” and “interlocutory” has to
be considered separately in relation to the
particular purpose for which it is required.
However, generally speaking, a judgment or order
which determines the principal matter in question
is termed final and simultaneously, an
interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the
main dispute may be conclusive as to the
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:07 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 20/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore,
in the considered opinion of this Court, if the
decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the
order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is
still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary
way, no finality could be attached to the order.”
8. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist
has challenged the impugned order dated 13/02/2023 passed by the
Ld. Trial Court. Vide order dated 13/02/2023, order on charge was
passed by the Ld. Trial Court and accused Gurjeet Singh was
discharged.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned
order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Girish Kumar Suneja case (supra) that order for framing of charge
is an intermediate order.
Hence, the present revision petition qua order on
charge/ discharge is maintainable.
Now, this Court shall discuss the merits of the present
revision petition.
9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention
here the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
In the present case, on the application u/s 156(3)
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:12 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 21/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
Cr.P.C. of the complainant, FIR was directed to be registered vide
order dated 13/07/2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
In the present case, on the complaint of the
complainant, FIR No. 241/2012 was got registered by the Police of
Police Station Punjabi Bagh. After registration of the FIR, the
matter was investigated by the police and on completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet for the offence u/s. 420/468/471/
120-B/34 IPC was submitted in the Ld. Trial Court on 01/12/2015
for trial of the accused Jatinder Kaur, Gurjeet Singh and Anupama
@ Jolly @ Sonu. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld.
Trial Court vide order dated 30/04/2016. Copy of the charge-sheet
was supplied to the accused Gurjeet Singh in compliance of
section 207 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of the case, accused
Jatinder Kaur had expired and vide order dated 15/10/2018 passed
by the Ld. Trial Court, proceedings against accused Jatinder Kaur
were abated. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to the filing of
the charge-sheet of the present case, accused Anupama @ Jolly @
Sonu was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated
15/03/2014 passed by the Ld. MM. Vide impugned order dated
13/02/2023, it was observed by the Ld. Trial Court that at this
stage, no offence is made out against the accused Gurjeet Singh
and accused Gurjeet Singh was discharged. It was also directed
that the file of the case be revived as and when any information
regarding the accused Anupama @ Jolly comes on record.
10. By way of present revision petition, the revisionist
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:18 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 22/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
has challenged the impugned order dated 13/02/2023 passed by the
Ld. Trial Court, thereby, accused Gurjeet Singh was discharged in
case FIR No. 241/2012 PS Punjabi Bagh.
It is well settled law that at the stage of framing
charge, the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other
material relied by the police in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
only has to be taken into consideration taking the evidence
collected on its face value. At this stage, the Court is not expected
to screen evidence or to apply the standard as to whether the
prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused on
trial or not.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as “Sajjan Kumar V. CBI” {(2010) 9 SCC 368} that :-
“21. On consideration of the
authorities about scope of Sections
227 and 228 of the Code, the following
principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been
made out. The test to determine prima
facie case would depend upon the facts
of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before
the Court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:22 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 23/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
properly explained, the Court will be
fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a
Post Office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the Court,
any basic infirmities etc. However, at
this stage, there cannot be a roving
enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he
was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on
record, the Court could form an
opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the
conclusion is required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the
charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into
but before framing a charge the Court
must apply its judicial mind on the
material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of
offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and
228, the Court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record
with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face
value discloses the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. For this limited purpose, sift
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:27 –
0100
CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 24/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all
that the prosecution states as gospel
truth even if it is opposed to common
sense or the broad probabilities of the
case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one
of them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion,
the trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this
stage, he is not to see whether the trial
will end in conviction or acquittal.”
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as “Bhawna Bai V. Ghanshyam” {(2020) 2 SCC 217} that :-
“…At the time of framing the charges,
only prima facie case is to be seen;
whether case is beyond reasonable
doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At
the stage of framing the charge, the
court has to see if there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused. While evaluating the
materials, strict standard of proof is
not required; only prima facie case
against the accused is to be seen.”
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as “Manendra Prasad Tiwari V. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr.”
{2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057} that :-
“21. The law is well settled that
although it is open to a High Court
entertaining a petition under Section
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:32 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 25/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
482 of the CrPC or a revision
application under Section 397 of the
CrPC to quash the charges framed by
the trial court, yet the same cannot be
done by weighing the correctness or
sufficiency of the evidence. In a case
praying for quashing of the charge, the
principle to be adopted by the High
Court should be that if the entire
evidence produced by the prosecution
is to be believed, would it constitute
an offence or not. The truthfulness,
the sufficiency and acceptability of the
material produced at the time of
framing of a charge can be done only
at the stage of trial. To put it more
succinctly, at the stage of charge the
Court is to examine the materials only
with a view to be satisfied that prima
facie case of commission of offence
alleged has been made out against the
accused person. It is also well settled
that when the petition is filed by the
accused under Section 482 CrPC or a
revision Petition under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the CrPC
seeking for the quashing of charge
framed against him, the Court should
not interfere with the order unless
there are strong reasons to hold that in
the interest of justice and to avoid
abuse of the process of the Court a
charge framed against the accused
needs to be quashed. Such an order can
be passed only in exceptional cases
and on rare occasions. It is to be kept
in mind that once the trial court has
framed a charge against an accused the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:37 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 26/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
trial must proceed without
unnecessary interference by a superior
court and the entire evidence from the
prosecution side should be placed on
record. Any attempt by an accused for
quashing of a charge before the entire
prosecution evidence has come on
record should not be entertained sans
exceptional cases.
22. The scope of interference and
exercise of jurisdiction under Section
397 of CrPC has been time and again
explained by this Court. Further, the
scope of interference under Section
397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had
been framed, is also well settled. At
the stage of framing of a charge, the
court is concerned not with the proof
of the allegation rather it has to focus
on the material and form an opinion
whether there is strong suspicion that
the accused has committed an
offence, which if put to trial, could
prove his guilt. The framing of charge
is not a stage, at which stage the final
test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to
hold that at the stage of framing the
charge, the court should form an
opinion that the accused is certainly
guilty of committing an offence, is to
hold something which is neither
permissible nor is in consonance with
the scheme of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court
with the power to call for and examine
the records of an inferior court for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:41 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 27/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
legality and regularity of any
proceedings or order made in a case.
The object of this provision is to set
right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity
which has crept in the proceeding.”
11. As per charge-sheet of the present case, it is the case
of the prosecution that all accused persons have entered into
criminal conspiracy and cheated the complainant and committed
the forgery of property documents pertaining to the property
bearing no. C-62A, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
In the present case, accused Anupama @ Sonu @
Jolly was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated
15/03/2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. During the pendency of
present case bearing FIR No. 241/2012 PS Punjabi Bagh, accused
Jatinder Kaur has expired and proceedings against accused
Jatinder Kaur were abated vide order dated 15/10/2018 passed by
the Ld. Trial Court.
In the charge-sheet, all the allegations have been
specifically made against the accused Jatinder Kaur and Anupama
@ Sonu @ Jolly. In the complaint of the complainant and FIR
No. 241/2012 PS Punjabi Bagh also, all the allegations have been
made by the complainant specifically against the accused Jatinder
Kaur and Anupama @ Sonu @ Jolly. In the charge-sheet,
complaint of the complainant and FIR of the present case, there is
no specific allegations of cheating and forgery against the
respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh. In the charge-sheet,
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:46 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 28/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
complaint of the complainant and FIR of the present case, it is not
specified as to in what mode and manner, the respondent
no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh had committed the offence of cheating
and forgery. Entire charge-sheet is silent in this regard. No specific
role has been attributed to respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh
regarding cheating and forgery. The only allegation against the
respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh is that he had witnessed the
registered Will and GPA dated 23/07/2010 executed by his mother
i.e. co-accused Jatinder Kaur. There is nothing on the Trial Court
record to show that the respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh is
the beneficiary of the aforesaid Will and GPA. It is the co-accused
Anupama @ Sonu @ Jolly, who is the beneficiary of the aforesaid
Will and GPA. There is no specific allegations against the
respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh that he has any role in the
forgery of the unregistered documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell,
affidavit and receipt. It is pertinent to mention here that the
complainant had filed the civil suit for recovery of possession,
mesne profits/damages and permanent injunction against the
accused Jatinder Kaur and copy of the plaint is on record. In the
plaint of the aforesaid civil suit, complainant/revisionist had not
made any allegations against the respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet
Singh. Aforesaid civil suit and counter-claim were already stated
to be dismissed by the Ld. ADJ Court vide judgment dated
29/09/2012. RFA of the same filed by the revisionist/complainant
is stated to be pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
Admittedly, respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh wasDigitally
not the
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:51 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 29/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
party in the aforesaid civil suit and counter-claim. It is pertinent to
mention here that vide order dated 14/05/2013 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No. 89/2013 of
the accused Gurjeet Singh, it was observed that ” there is no
specific allegation levelled against the petitioner that he has any
role in the alleged forgery of the unregistered transfer documents,
GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt “.
It is well settled law that charge cannot be framed
only on the basis of unsubstantiated assumptions and
presumptions. For the purpose of framing charge against the
accused, there should be sufficient incriminating material
available on record. There is no incriminating/sufficient material
available on Trial Court record for the purpose of framing the
charge against the respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh. Prima-
facie no case for the offence u/s. 420/468/471/120-B/34 IPC is
made out against the respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh for
the purpose of framing the charge against him.
12. It is the contention of the revisionist that the
respondent no.2/accused Gurjeet Singh is the sole beneficiary of
the forged documents and at present, he is enjoying and residing in
the property in question. There is nothing in the charge-sheet,
complaint and FIR to show that the respondent no.2/accused
Gurjeet Singh was the beneficiary of the aforesaid documents at
the time of registration of FIR and filing of the charge-sheet or
during the life time of accused Jatinder Kaur. There is also nothing
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:45:58 -0100CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 30/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
in the plaint of the aforesaid civil suit filed by the
revisionist/plaintiff to show that the respondent no.2/accused
Gurjeet Singh was the beneficiary of the aforesaid documents.
Even otherwise, matter/ issue pertaining to the ownership rights,
title and interest of the parties pertaining to the property in
question are subjudice in the aforesaid RFA before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi. In view of the same, contention of the
revisionist in this regard is not tenable.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present
revision petition, the revisionist has filed some additional
documents, which are not the part of the charge-sheet of the
present case. Hence, the same cannot be considered by this Court
at this stage. It is well settled law that the document which is not
filed or relied upon before the Ld. Trial Court cannot be considered
by the Revisional Court.
14. It is well settled law that scope of revisional
jurisdiction is very limited and same cannot be exercised in a
routine manner.
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case
titled as “Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr.” {AIRONLINE 2021
DEL 687} that :-
“The scope of interference in a
revision petition is extremely narrow.
It is well settled that Section 397
Cr.P.C. gives the High Courts or the Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:46:03 –
0100
CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 31/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
Sessions Courts jurisdiction to
consider the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding inter se an
order and as to the regularity of the
proceedings of any inferior court. It is
also well settled that while considering
the legality, propriety or correctness of
a finding or a conclusion, normally the
revising court does not dwell at length
upon the facts and evidence of the
case. A court in revision considers the
material only to satisfy itself about the
legality and propriety of the findings,
sentence and order and refrains from
substituting its own conclusion on an
elaborate consideration of evidence.”
15. It is well settled law that the Revisional Court will
usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Trial
Court and the Revisional Court will interfere only, if it is found that
the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously,
perversely or if it is found that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored
settled principles of law.
There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld.
Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and
perversely. There is also nothing on the record to show that the Ld.
Trial Court has ignored the settled principles of law. There is no
illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed
by the Ld. Trial Court.
16. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:46:08 -0100
CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 32/33
Gurkamal Singh V. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.
down in the case laws relied upon by counsel for the revisionist,
however, the same are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
17. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the
aforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality,
impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld.
Trial Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the
revisionist is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein
shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of
this judgment. Revision file be consigned to record room after due
compliance. Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.04.15
17:46:13 –
0100 Announced in the open Court on 15/04/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 292/2023 Page No. 33/33
[ad_1]
Source link