Delhi High Court
Mohan Lal vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors. on 27 February, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 27th February, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 3425/2021
MOHAN LAL
A-301, Meghdoot Apartments, Plot -19,
Sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi - 110075 .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
1. STATE OF G.N.C.T. OF DELHI
Through Chief Secretary, G.N.C.T. of Delhi,
5th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
Delhi - 110002. .....Respondent No.1.
2. Sandeep Aggarwal
son of Sh. Bal Kishan Aggarwal
llnd Floor, 70 Tagore Park,
Delhi - 110009. .....Respondent No.2.
3. Pankaj Kumar Rajan, Advocate,
Ch. No. 340 Civil Wing,
Tis Hazari Court Advocates Chambers,
Delhi - 110054. .....Respondent No.3.
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Ld. APP for
the State with SI Sanjeeta P.S.
Mukherjee Nagar.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ranjan, Advocate
for private Respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 1 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
1. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) read with Article 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed to challenge the Order dated 04.09.2021 of
learned ASJ upholding the Order of learned M.M. dated 15.12.2020
whereby the Complaint filed by the Petitioner under Section 200
Cr.P.C., has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, Respondent No.2, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Rajan
filed a Complaint against his wife (who is the daughter of the
Petitioner Mohan Lal) in which he also was impleaded, which was
dismissed. The Order was challenged by way of a Revision Petition.
3. The Petitioner, Mohan Lal then filed a Complaint on the ground
that there was tampering of record while the matter was pending
before the Court of learned ASJ. In the affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Rajan, the word ‘deponent’ was changed to Revisionist whereas the
Paper book supplied to Sh. Mohan Lal had the affidavit mentioning
the name of Pankaj Kumar Rajan as deponent.
4. Furthermore, certified copy of the impugned Order dated
24.11.2016 of learned M.M. had been filed on record, but the typed
copy of the same was supplied to Sh. Mohan Lal running into two
pages. Hence, he alleged that offence under Section 378 and 415 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘ hereinafter) was committed.
5. The learned Magistrate in the Order dated 15.12.2020 observed
that if at all there is any manipulation or tampering, then it is of the
record before the learned ASJ and a separate Complaint before the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 2 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
learned M.M was not maintainable. Moreover, in case of tampering,
Complaint should have been filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and not
under Section 378 IPC alleging theft. Furthermore, the record
revealed that the Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was indeed
filed before learned ASJ, which was dismissed after consideration.
The said Order was challenged before High Court of Delhi wherein as
well it was held that no perjury was committed of the Court record.
This Court also observed that if the Paper Book supplied to the
Petitioner was at variance with the Court record, that cannot amount
to perjury of the Court record. The Petition so filed by Mohan Lal, in
regard to Perjury, was accordingly dismissed by this Court.
6. The Complaint, with the aforesaid observations, was dismissed
by learned M.M.
7. The Order of the learned M.M. dated 15.12.2020, was
challenged before the learned Sessions Judge vide Crl.Rev.15/2021
which was also dismissed by the learned Special Judge vide his Order
dated 04.09.2021 by observing that the findings of the learned M.M.
in regard to there being no evidence made out for offense under
Section 378/415 IPC was correct and did not merit any interference.
8. The present Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to
challenge the Order of the learned M.M dated 15.12.2020 and of ASJ
dated 04.09.2021 on the following grounds:-
(i) that the learned M.M had recorded in the title of impugned
Order that there was only one Respondent, which makes theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 3 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
impugned Order improper.
(ii) The arguments were heard on 19.12.2019 but the Order was
passed after 363 days.
(iii) That the accused No.2 had filed a Complaint against his wife
(daughter of the Complainant). This statement in impugned
Order is incorrect because the complaint was filed by
Respondent No.2 and not by Respondent No.3.
(iv) Learned M.M observed that the Complainant is the father of the
accused No.2, when in fact he was the father-in-law of
respondent No.2.
(v) Learned M.M observed that the only grievance of the Petitioner
was about certain tampering, when in fact his grievance also
was that the typed copy of the correct Order was not supplied
but the copy supplied was some forged papers that were filed in
the Court and supplied to him.
(vi) Learned Magistrate confined the consideration only to the
Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. when the alleged
offences he had claimed was about the offence under Section
415 Cr.P.C.
(vii) Section 195(1) Cr.P.C does not apply for the offences
punishable under Sections 417,466, 468, 511 and 34 IPC that
were committed by Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
(viii) Even for the offences punishable under Section 465 and 471
IPC, the bar of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C was not applicable in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 4 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
view of the judgment of the Apex Court in M.L.Sethi vs.
R.P.Kapur.
(ix) Learned M.M incorrectly observed that for the offence of
cheating only the learned ASJ was competent; however, for
taking the cognizance of the offence of cheating as per Cr.P.C.,
the Competent Court is that of the learned M.M.
(x) Further the observations of the learned M.M that the record of
the case was maintained by the Court of ASJ, also makes the
impugned Order illegal since the record of decided Criminal
Revision Petition No.3/15 was maintained in the Record Room
and not in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. For looking
into the offences committed by private Respondents herein, the
records could have been very well called from the Record
Room.
9. It was thus, contended that the conclusions of the learned M.M
were not supported by the evidence and are liable to be set aside. It is
further asserted that the impugned Order of the learned M.M does not
consider the averments made in the Complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C,, his pre-summoning statement on oath and the documents
exhibited by him. It was prima facie established that he was cheated in
the manner as claimed in the Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
which could not have been rejected.
10. Further, Section 340 of Cr.P.C. does not apply to other
documents i.e. the ones under reference. The offences involved in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 5 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
instant case had been committed by Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in a
proceeding. Section 415 IPC and not Section 340 Cr.P.C. Was
applicable to the facts as narrated in the Complaint.
11. Furthermore the learned Magistrate has not disbelieved the
material available on record and therefore, the Order dismissing the
Complaint is illegal. Reliance has been placed on Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. M.Sivamani and Monica Bedi vs. State of A.P.
Furthermore, the observations of the learned M.M that the Petitioner
was not prejudiced is incorrect, and this was only an opinion of the
learned ASJ and not a finding of the Trial Court. The exhibited
documents together show that he was actually prejudiced by
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filing and supplying incorrect Order to the
Petitioner in the Court of ASJ.
12. It is further asserted that the Order dated 04.09.2021 of learned
ASJ in upholding the Order of learned M.M also suffers from various
infirmities. In paragraph 2 of the impugned Order, the year of
marriage of Respondent No.2 with his daughter Ms. Priyanka
Agarwal is written as 2006 when in fact they got married in 2005 as is
clearly stated in the Complaint.
13. Further, in the impugned Order it has been observed that the
Petitioner and his daughter have been summoned, when in fact it was
his wife who had been summoned along with him and not the
daughter. The wrong relation between the Petitioner with Respondent
No.2 has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the impugned Order which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 6 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
should have been based on true facts.
14. The reference to pages Nos. 16 and 17 is also made wrongly as
these were non Orders which were not actually impugned Orders.
These were wrongly attested by Respondent No.3 as true copy of
actual impugned Order.
15. Furthermore, learned M.M had considered cheating and perjury
as same offences, but in fact they are different offences. In the last
sentence in paragraph 3 of the impugned Order, the version of the
High Court has been referred to conclude that there was no case made
out under Section 378/415 IPC which is wrong interpretation as the
observations by the High Court were limited to offences under Section
340/195 Cr.P.C. In paragraph 13 while quoting para 10 of the Reply,
learned ASJ has not looked into the alleged copy filed as well as
supplied to the Petitioner nor the copy of the actual Order. Further, it
is wrongly stated that incomplete true copy of the Order was supplied
when it was in fact a forged Order that was supplied to him.
16. Learned ASJ was required to look into the incorrectness,
impropriety and illegality if any in the impugned Order but instead he
has tried to justify the actions of Respondent Nos.2 & 3. There are no
findings in respect of the offence under Sections 415,
417,463,466,468,471 and 511 IPC. Furthermore, the cause list of date
04.09.2021 and Order Sheet dated 17.08.2021 reflects that matter was
actually listed for arguments despite which the Petition had been
disposed of. Furthermore, though there is a reference to four
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 7 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
judgments relied upon by the Petitioner, they have not been
considered in the Order.
17. Moreover, the delay of 363 days in pronouncing the Order by
the Magistrate after hearing the arguments has been sought to be
justified on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, but he forgot that the said
Orders did not prohibit the M.M from passing the Orders which have
been reserved on 19.12.2019. Reliance has been placed on M.L.Sethi
vs. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528 in respect of Section 211 IPC. It is,
therefore, submitted that the impugned Order dated 04.09.2021 by
learned ASJ and the Order dated 15.12.2020 of learned M.M are
liable to be set aside.
18. Respondent No.2 has filed written arguments wherein all the
averments made in the Petition have been denied. It is asserted that
the Petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands but has
tried to mislead the Court. It is claimed by the Petitioner that he was
not supplied the true copy of the Order dated 24.11.2014; rather non
Order running into two pages was supplied, however, the Petitioner
neither in the present Petition nor in the Complaint or in the Revision
Petition stated when he got the knowledge of non supply of the true
and correct Order dated 24.11.2014. Rather, the Petitioner from the
very beginning was having the certified copy of the Order dated
24.11.2014. It is established from the Revision Petition filed by the
Petitioner against the Order dated 24.11.2014 in CC No.87/1/14
wherein the Petitioner himself had filed the certified copy of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 8 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
Order dated 24.11.2014 in which the date has been mentioned as
02.01.2015. The claim of the Petitioner that he was not aware of the
contents of the Order dated 24.11.2014 and that he was cheated is
completely incorrect. It is asserted that a party cannot claim to be
cheated when he himself was a party to the proceedings and it was
possible for him to get the copy of the Order dated 24.11.2014.
Furthermore, in case the Petitioner was having a deficient non Order
copy of the Order dated 24.11.2014, he could have agitated this aspect
before the Court concerned rather than filing a separate Petition
claiming cheating and theft.
19. Furthermore, after the decision of the Revision Petition
No.3/15, a similar complaint has been filed by the Petitioner against
Respondent No.2 bearing Misc.Crl.No.5182/16 titled Sandeep
Aggarwal vs. Priyanka Aggarwal under Section 340(1) read with
Section 195(1)(ii) Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed on 26.11.2016.
The Petitioner in the said Complaint had made similar allegations of
forgery and interpolation at various places in various documents in
Court record and that he had not been supplied with the true copy of
the Order dated 24.11.2014. He also alleged that Respondent No.2
had done the criminal acts of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of
trust in the Court record etc. The Court held that no such objections
had been taken before the Court concerned. Further, Petitioner being
well aware of the contents of the impugned Order challenged by way
of captioned revision petition, no prejudice as such was shown to have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 9 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
been caused. The remaining interpolations as noted above, were held
to be mere typographical corrections made by the Respondent herein
in the relevant documents though not made in the copy of the paper
book sent to the Petitioner herein along with the notice of Revision
Petition. It does not amount to commission of offence of forgery,
cheating or attempt to cheat or criminal breach of trust. The
Misc.Crl.No.5182/2016 was dismissed and the order had been upheld
by the High Court vide its Order dated 27.09.2017 with the
observation that the discrepancy pointed out do not amount to perjury
or forgery in Court record. No court record appears to be tampered
and there was no occasion to invoke Section 340 (1) read with Section
195(1)(ii) Cr.P.C.
20. It is submitted that the Criminal Complaint No.4612/2017 had
been filed in respect of the same subject matter which was agitated in
previous Complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Supreme Court in
Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876
had held that though there is no bar to filing of the second Complaint
on the same facts, but it is to be entertained only in exceptional
circumstances e.g. where the previous Order was passed on an
incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the
Complaint or if it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where
new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been
brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced.
21. Reliance is also placed on Samta Naidu & Anr vs. State of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 10 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
Madhya Pradesh and Anr, Crl.Appeal Nos.367-368/2020 wherein
similar observations were made. It was further observed that the
second Complaint would not be maintainable where the earlier
complaint had been disposed of on full consideration of the case of
the complainant on merits.
22. Essentially the facts which form the basis of the Complaint
under Section 340 Cr.P.C have been re-agitated in the present
Complaint which has been rightly dismissed by the learned ASJ. It is
further submitted that neither is the offence under Section 378 IPC
made out nor was the offence of cheating made out. It is, therefore,
submitted that the present Petition is without merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
23. Submissions heard and record perused.
24. Essentially, the basic contentions of the Petitioner in its Petition
No.4612/2017 was that in the earlier Order dated 24.11.2014 while
dismissing his earlier Complaint, had made certain observations
which were factually incorrect like the relationship between the
Petitioner and his wife had not been correctly disclosed. The
Petitioner has also pointed out some errors in describing the Petitioner
as the father of Respondent No.2 and incorrectly giving the date of
marriage of his daughter to Respondent No.2 and such like errors, but
in case there were such errors in the impugned Order, the appropriate
remedy was to seek the corrections by moving an Application before
the learned MM. It does not give him any right to file the present
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 11 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
Complaint No.4612/2017, alleging manipulation.
25. The Complainant has claimed firstly, that the Revision Petition
was filed by Respondent No.2, in which he had tampered the record.
Essentially the claim of such tampering was that the word ‘dependent’
had been changed as ‘Revisionist’ in the affidavit and the pleadings
filed before the learned ASJ, but the Paper Book supplied to him, it
had word ‘dependent” stated. It was further asserted that the typed
copy of the impugned Order dated 24.11.2014 supplied to him was
running in two pages and, therefore, the offence under Section 378
and 415 IPC was committed.
26. It is quite evident from the averments made in the Petition that
there was no tampering in the records filed before the Court which
originally contained the word ‘Revisionist’. The copy supplied to the
Petitioner may not have been corrected, but on this ground it cannot
be said that the Court records had been tampered or forged. No such
forgery or tampering has been done after the documents have been
filed before the learned ASJ as has been rightly concluded that no
offence of forgery, manipulation or tampering has been established.
27. The second averment made by the Petitioner was that by
supplying him typed copy of the impugned Order dated 24.11.2014 in
two pages, an endeavour has been made by the Respondent No.2 to
cheat the Petitioner. However, as has been detailed by Ld. ASJ in the
impugned Order that the Petitioner was a party to the Petition in
which the Order dated 24.11.2014 was made and he already had a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 12 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
certified copy of the same which was filed by the Petitioner himself in
other proceedings.
28. Firstly, merely because the true typed copy of the Order was
sent to the Petitioner, cannot ipso facto lead to any conclusion that
there was any cheating committed. Furthermore, for an offence of
cheating to be made, there has to be deception of a person, which is
not in the present case as Petitioner already had the certified copy of
the impugned Order. There was neither any fraudulence or dishonesty
on the part of Respondent No.2 in giving the typed copy which could
have caused any harm or damage to the Petitioner. Learned ASJ,
therefore, rightly concluded that no offence of cheating was made out.
29. Likewise, in order for an offence of theft to be committed, it had
to be shown that some property has been taken up of the possession of
an individual without his consent or permission. Merely because the
Paper Book provided to the Petitioner was having some typographical
errors when compared to those filed in the Court, or was supplied a
typed copy of Order instead of certified Copy of Order, it cannot be
said that there is any document, property or page taken out of the
records of the learned Trial Court. The learned ASJ, therefore, rightly
observed that there is no offence of theft made out.
30. In the end, it may be pertinent to observe that the Petitioner has
been filing one Petition after the other on similar allegations of
perjury, manipulation of records, theft, cheating, etc. one after the
other which is nothing but actually frivolous and vexatious. However,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 13 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
considering he that he is the father of the daughter against whom
Respondent No.2 has filed litigations, this Court refrains itself from
imposing any cost while dismissing the Petition.
31. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Petition is
hereby dismissed.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 27, 2025
rk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA CRL.M.C. 3425/2021 Page 14 of 14
Signing Date:10.03.2025
20:05:32
[ad_1]
Source link