[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Meenu Thukral & Ors vs State & Anr on 27 May, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 18th February, 2025
Pronounced on:27th May, 2025
+ CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 & CRL.M.A. 5447/2012 (stay)
1. Meenu Thukral
W/o Late Ashwani Thural
R/o North 34, Riviera Apartments,
46 Mall Road, Delhi 110054 ...Petitioner No. 1
2. Rajiv Gupta
S/o Late Shri G.B. Gupta
R/o North 5,Riviera Apartments,
45, Mall Road, Delhi-110054 ....Petitioner No. 2
3. Gagan Marwah
S/o Late Shri Krishan Lal
R/o North 28, Riviera Apartments,
45 Mall Road, Delhi-110054 ....Petitioner No. 3
Through: Ms. Rebecca M.John, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Anushika Baruah
and Mr. Nilanjan Dey, Advocates.
versus
1. STATE .....Respondent No.1
2. SANJAY CHIRIPAL
S/o R.K. Chiripal
R/o North 1, Riviera Apartments,
45 Mall Road, Delhi-110054 ...Respondent No. 2
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State with SI Prabhash, DIU/North.
Mr. Bakul Jain, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 1 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
1. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC‘) has been filed
on behalf of the Petitioners against the Order dated 08.11.2011 directing the
Charges to be framed under Section 120-B/420/511/468/471 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘) and Order dated 06.02.2012
vide which the Charges were accordingly framed.
2. Facts in brief are that the Petitioners i.e. Ms. Meenu Thukral, Mr.
Rajiv Gupta and Mr. Gagan Marwah, were the Vice President, Secretary and
the Joint Secretary respectively of the Society by the name of Riviera
Apartments, Owners Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Society”) for the period 2007-2008.
3. On 28.06.2003, Mr. Sanjay Chiripal, the Complainant purchased a flat
bearing Number „North One‟ in the Society. Mr. R.K. Chiripal, his father
was the original member and was owner of a separate flat.
4. On 21.11.2004, the Annual General Meeting of the Society was
convened, which was attended by Mr. R.K. Chiripal, father of the
Complainant. He proposed voluntary donation and over and above the
Transfer Fee of Rs.10,000/- for carrying out the major repairs in the Society.
A Resolution was unanimously passed for the same.
5. On 05.12.2004, the Complainant for the first time, submitted the
original Share Certificate of the Flat for its transfer in his name, vide Letter
dated 05.12.2004.
6. On 06.12.2004, the Complainant issued two cheques, one dated
05.12.2004 in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, drawn on the Canara Bank, towards
Transfer charges. He also issued another cheque in the sum of Rs.21,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 2 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
towards voluntary donation in favour of the Society. Two Receipts bearing
No. 1119 and 1120 dated 06.12.2004, were issued by the Society under the
signatures of the then Manager. The Share Certificate was transferred in
favour of the Complainant on 05.12.2004 itself i.e. even before he handed
over the cheques to the Society. The cheques were encashed on 08.12.2004.
7. It is further averred that the Complainant carried out unauthorized
construction in his flat, which was opposed by the office bearers and other
members of the Society including the Petitioners. Eventually, on
10.05.2006, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short ‘MCD’)
demolished the unauthorized construction. Since then, the Complainant is
bearing a grudge against the Petitioners and other office bearers of the
Society and he began a slander campaign against them.
8. On 26.09.2006, the Complainant for the first time issued a Legal
Notice to the Society asking for refund of Rs.31,000/- given to the Society
towards Share Transfer and donation. The Complainant filed a case before
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against the Society, on
15.11.2006 seeking refund of Rs.31,000/- alleging that he was forced to
make the payment of the said amount under duress and pressure.
9. A Reply was filed by the Society along with the copy of the two
Receipts towards the payment made by the Complainant. On 03.04.2007, the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed an Order in favour of
the Complainant directing the Society to refund Rs.31,000/- to the
Complainant.
10. The Society preferred an Appeal against the said Order before the
State Commission. The Society allegedly again filed the copies of the two
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 3 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
Receipts issued in favour of the Complainant but this time, it was alleged
that the said Receipts bore the forged signatures of the Complainant, who
claimed that the Petitioners had conspired with each other in order to
connive and represent before the State Commission that the amounts had
been deposited voluntary and without any protest by the Complainant. The
amount so collected by the Society was for Building Development Fund,
Transfer Charges and voluntary donations , etc.
11. The Complainant thereafter, made various Complaints to the Police
Official alleging that the two Receipts filed by the Society before the State
Commission, were forged and did not bear his signatures.
12. He also moved an Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against
the Society but it was dismissed by the State Commission vide Order dated
25.09.2007. In the interim, the Appeal preferred by the Society in the State
Commission, was partly allowed vide Order dated 05.12.2008 and the
Society was directed to refund Rs.21,000/- out of Rs.31,000/-.
13. The Complainant then filed an Application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. dated 17.12.2007 alleging that the Petitioners and other office
bearers of the Society had committed forgery, cheating and criminal
intimidation.
14. On the directions of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FIR No.
53/2008 under Section 384/420/467/468/471/506/120-B/34 IPC was
registered at Police Station Timarpur.
15. The Charge Sheet was accordingly filed against the Petitioners and
other co-accused on 27.11.2008. The specimen handwritings of the
Petitioners, was sent for forensic examination and the Government
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 4 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
Examiner in his Report dated 14.05.2008 observed that “it was not possible
to express any opinion regarding the authorship of the red enclosed
signatures marked Q1 and Q2 in comparison with the specimen writings.”
The Supplementary Charge Sheet was filed on 02.06.2009, on the basis of
an illegal and inadmissible Statement dated 27.05.2009 of Mr. P.N. Singh,
who himself was an Accused in this case.
16. The learned Trial Court vide its Order dated 08.11.2011 held that
there was sufficient evidence on record for framing of the Charges and
consequently the Charges dated 06.03.2012 under Section 120-B/420/511
read with Section 120-B/468 read with Section 120-B/471 read with Section
120-B IPC were framed. The formal Charges were framed on 06.02.2012.
17. The Order on Charge has been challenged by way of the present
Revision Petition on the ground that they are contrary to facts and law on
record and the Order is based on conjectures and surmises. The Petitioner
No. 1 was the Vice President, the Petitioner No. 2 was the Secretary and the
Petitioner No. 3 was the Joint Secretary of the Co-operative Group Housing
Society, with whom the Complainant had a long standing dispute. The
Charge-Sheet does not specify as to how and in what manner, the Petitioners
could have benefitted from the alleged forgery of the Receipts in question.
The Complainant has failed to specify as to how the Petitioners can be held
liable for the offence of forgery and cheating.
18. The Petitioners have been prosecuted primarily on the ground that
they were Office bearers of the Society. Such allegations are preposterous,
absurd and motivated. The Order on Charge dated 08.11.2011 does not
discuss the alleged specific roles attributable to the Petitioners, to constitute
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 5 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
the stated offences. The Charges framed against the Petitioners, are vague
and ambiguous and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
19. It is further contended that the Petitioners and other Office bearers,
who were present at the AGM held on 21.11.2001 wherein the proposal was
passed regarding the voluntary donation in favour of the Society on transfer
of flat, which according to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, was
indicative of their role in conspiracy.
20. No AGM in fact, was held on 21.11.2001. It has not been appreciated
that the AGM was held on 21.11.2004, which was attended by Mr. R.K.
Chiripal, father of the Complainant, who himself proposed that a voluntary
donation should be given to carry out major repairs in the Society.
21. Furthermore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in holding
all the Office bearers to be collectively responsible for having custody of the
disputed Receipts. It has not been specified in whose physical possession,
the Receipts had been kept.
22. Further, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the CFSL
Report does not give any adverse finding against the Petitioners. It does not
show that the alleged forgery was committed by the Petitioners.
23. Moreover, the Complainant had raised the Objection towards payment
of Rs.31,000/- after the gap of more than one and a half year, out of sheer
vengeance in order to take revenge of the demolition of the unauthorised
construction carried out by him in his flat.
24. It has also not been appreciated that the payments were made by way
of cheque and nothing prevented by the Complainant from stopping the
payment of cheques by giving instructions in his bank in case he felt that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 6 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
any threat or pressure had been exerted on him. The Share Certificates were
transferred in the name of the Complainant on 05.12.2004 itself while the
cheques were submitted on the next date i.e. 06.12.2004.
25. The Petitioners had no occasion to forge the Receipts as the payment
had been made voluntarily pursuant to the proposal made by the father in
the AGM dated 21.11.2004.
26. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Smt.
Manju Gupta vs. Lt Col M.S. Paintal, 1982 SCC 412 where it was
categorically held that the Office bearers of the Society cannot be criminally
held liable for the offences of forgery of rent receipts without specific
evidence of their complicity in the crime.
27. The Statement of the co-accused, namely, P.N. Singh, recorded in the
Supplementary Charge-Sheet while correctly disregarded by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, but he still proceeded to frame charges on the
assumption that the Petitioners were Office bearers of the Society and were,
therefore, custodians of the Receipts in question. Reliance has also been
placed on Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4
wherein it was observed that by and large if two views are possible while
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the Accused,
he was well within his right to be discharged.
28. Similar observations were made in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2002) SCC (Cr.) 310. Reliance is also placed on Surendra
Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar (2020) 18 SCC 730 to state that when
allegations are bald and omnibus involving allegations of cheating then the
proceeding is liable to be quashed. Further reliance is placed on Sheila
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 7 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581 to submit that a charge of
forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the false
documents in question.
29. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid grounds taken by the
Petitioners, the impugned Order on Charge dated 08.11.2011 and the
Charges so framed on 06.02.2012 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
be set-aside.
30. The Respondent No. 2/Complainant in his Written Submissions, has
asserted that he had applied for transfer of Flat in his name in the Society on
17.06.2004, which was kept pending till 05.12.2004, due to illegal demand
of the money and the transfer of the membership/flat. As per the Delhi Co-
operative Societies Act, 2003 and the Rules 2007, there is a time period of
one month, to dispose of the Application for transfer. No Letter was issued
after 17.06.2004 till 05.02.2004 by the Society requiring any further
information or documents from him for transfer of the flat.
31. The Agenda Notice dated 01.11.2004 for AGM to be held on
21.11.2004 was issued by the then Secretary/Petitioner No. 2 wherein one of
the Agenda was to discuss the amount of the donation to be taken from
members at the time of transfer of flat. This Agenda clearly shows mala
Fide on the part of the Accused as to why the matter of transfer of Flat was
kept pending.
32. The Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were President, Vice President,
Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Society from 21.11.2004 till 20.05.2007
and thereafter, remained Officers of the Society till 21.04.2008. Accused
No. 7, namely, T.R. Kapoor was made a permanent Special Invitee in AGM
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 8 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
dated 21.11.2004, who participated in the Managing Committee Meeting
and remained special Invitee till 20.05.2007. He was made member of the
Share Transfer Sub-Committee/membership screening Sub-Committee on
19.02.2006 and remained so till 18.03.2007. He was playing a major role in
the affairs of the Society. The Accused No. 6 namely, P.N. Singh was the
Manager of the Society from 01.04.2006 till August, 2012.
33. It is further asserted that all the Accused persons were the custodian
of the records of the Society and were jointly and severally responsible for
any illegal act committed by the Society. It is nowhere recorded in the
Minutes dated 21.11.2004 of Annual General Body that father of the
Complainant, had proposed voluntary donation. The Resolution for charging
voluntary donation was passed in the AGM dated 21.11.2004 in the presence
of the Accused persons.
34. An Inspection Report dated 04.04.2007 under Section 61 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 was submitted wherein it was noted that the
Society was charging the illegal Entry Fee directly or in the form of
Building Development Fund and transfer of Shares was not taking place
unless Entry Fee was received by the Society. Accused No. 1 had proposed
voluntary donation against all norms and that an amount of Rs.8,98,500/-
had been collected at the time of transfer of Flats since 1999 till 31.03.2004.
35. The Complainant asserted that he was forced to pay under coercion
and threat, a sum of Rs.31,000/- for transfer of Flat in his name, which he
gave vide two Receipts numbers 1119 and 1120. He explained that the two
Receipts filed before the State Commission, had his forged signatures,
which had been intentionally done by the Petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 9 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
36. The State Commission directed the refund of a sum of Rs.21,000/.
37. Accused No. 6, P.N. Singh, Manager of the Society from April 2006
till August 2012, in his Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on
27.05.2009 as part of the Supplementary Charge-Sheet, specifically stated
that the transfer of flat of the Respondent No. 2, was kept pending on the
instructions of Accused No. 7 that unless the money was paid as per the
desire of the Accused person, Share shall not be transferred in the name of
the Complainant. The detail of Representations dated 17.11.2008 of the
Accused No. 6, are well corroborated in Appeal filed by the Society before
the State Commission.
38. In the end, it is asserted that the Society was the beneficiary by way of
success of Appeal filed by him, through the Accused persons/Revisionists
before the State Commission by forging signatures of Respondent No.2 on
two Receipts and using them as originals in a criminal conspiracy hatched
by all the Accused persons, to cheat, deceive and misguide the State
Commission and the Complainant.
39. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned Order and the
Revision is liable to be dismissed.
40. Submissions heard and Record perused.
41. It is not in dispute that Mr. R.K. Chiripal, father of the Complainant,
was the member and holding a flat in the Society in which the Complainant
also sought a Flat in his name, which was eventually allotted and transferred
in his name on 05.12.2004. The only dispute which has emerged, is in regard
to the payment of Rs.21,000/- as donation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 10 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
42. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the AGM held on
21.11.2004, which was attended by the members of the Society, including
the Office bearers as well as Mr. R.K. Chiripal, father of the Complainant.
43. Complainant himself has stated that one of the Agenda for the AGM
was to discuss about the amount of donation to be taken from the members
at the time of transfer of Flats for development of Society. The Copy of the
Minutes of AGM, has been annexed wherein it has been recorded that it
was Mr. R.K. Chiripal, father of the Complainant, who had proposed to take
donation at the time of transfer of flat, though he subsequently retraced by
stating that it may be taken as a decision of all the members of the Society. It
is, therefore, evident that it was a decision taken by the members and the
Office bearers on 21.11.2004 of which Mr. R.K. Chiripal, father of the
Complainant, was also a party and it was decided that the donation amount
be taken at the time of transfer of the Flat for the purpose of upkeep of the
buildings of the Society.
44. Consequent to this AGM, when the Applicant applied on 05.12.2004
for Share Transfer Certificate in his name, the Share Transfer Certificate
was issued on the same date. The Complainant also gave two cheques, one
of Rs.10,000/- as Transfer charges and Rs.21,000/- towards the voluntary
donation. The two cheques were given pursuant to the Resolution passed in
AGM on 21.11.2004. There can be no ill will or ill motive imputed to any of
the Office bearers.
45. The two Receipts, were admittedly issued in favour of the
Complainant, in acknowledgement of the Cheques, which got filed before
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 11 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum vide Order
dated 03.04.2007 directed the Society for refund of Rs.31,000/-.
46. The actual problems started when an Appeal was preferred by the
Petitioners in the State Commission, challenging the Order of District
Consumer Redressal Forum dated 03.04.2007. Ultimately, the Petitioners
succeeded in so much as Rs.21,000/- towards voluntary donations, was
directed to be refunded along with the cost of litigation and Rs.4,000/- as
compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.
47. Despite having succeeded in State Commission, the grievance of the
Complainant is that the copy of the two Receipts that of filed in the State
Commission, did not bear his signatures and he claimed that they were
forged and fabricated. The specimen signatures were sent to FSL and Report
dated 14.05.2008 was received, which categorically gave a finding that the
signatures on the Receipt, were not of the Complainant but it was unable to
state as who had forged the signatures.
48. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the payment of Rs.21,000/-
had never been disputed and in fact, the filing of original Receipts before the
District Consumer Redressal Forum, has also been accepted. In the
Supplementary Statement of Mr. P.N. Singh recorded by the Investigating
Officer, he had explained that at a Meeting of the Office bearers he had
overheard, Accused Nos. 5 and 7, conspiring to somehow manipulate the
carbon copy of the Receipts available with them and they put the forged
signatures to be submitted before the State Commission, to somehow win
the case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 12 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
49. This entire story, which has been cooked by the Prosecution, does not
inspire any confidence for the simple reason that Mr. P.N. Singh was
himself one of the Accused and his Supplementary Statement as recorded,
was not admissible in law. It is evident from his Statement that he has tried
to exculpate himself by putting all the blame on the other Accused persons.
50. It does not meet any reason for the Petitioners to have forged any
Receipt when the payments were documented through cheques and was
admitted by the Complainant. Where was the need or the occasion to forge
the signatures of the Complainant on the two Receipts especially when the
original Receipts, were filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum
and were found to be genuine.
51. It is evident that firstly, these alleged Receipts were not found to be
forged by the Petitioners, as the FSL Report nowhere inculpated any of the
Petitioners. Secondly, there was no undue advantage that was to accrue to
the Petitioners by forging carbon copy of the Receipts, admittedly given to
the Complainant acknowledgment of her two cheques given by him.
52. It is evident that neither was there any forgery done by the Petitioners
punishable under Section 468 IPC nor did they cheat the Complainant and
no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. Pertinently, no offence under
Section 471 IPC is also made out as there was no intent to use a forged
document as genuine.
53. In this context, reference may also be made to Section 95 IPC, which
provides – Act causing slight harm. It is stated therein that nothing is an
offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is
known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 13 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. In the
present case, there is absolutely no unlawful gain to accrue in favour of the
Petitioners and there was absolutely no harm, which could have been caused
to the Complainants.
54. In fact, all the facts were duly admitted and were not in dispute. The
decision was taken by the AGM, to seek donations for upkeep of the
Society, which may have been upset subsequently, but that does not mean
that it was intended for any unlawful and illegal gain.
55. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, therefore, fell in error in
holding that prima facie Charges under Section 120-B/468/471/420 IPC
were made out. The impugned Order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate is
hereby set-aside and the Revision Petition is hereby allowed.
56. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly along with
the pending Application(s).
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MAY 27, 2025/RS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.REV.P. 240/2012 Page 14 of 14
ARORA
Signing Date:27.05.2025
18:36:49
[ad_2]
Source link