Delhi High Court – Orders
Shiv Charan @ Kalli vs State & Ors on 28 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019
SHIV CHARAN @ KALLI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Astha, Advocate (DHCLSC) with
Ms. Megha Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State with Insp. Amit Pratap, PS
EOW
Mr. Tushar Rohmetda, Mr. Anubhav
Sharma, Advocates for R-2, 4 & 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 28.07.2025
1. The present criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397, 401
read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is directed against
order dated 17th September, 2019, passed by ASJ-02, North District, Rohini
Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 59/2019 titled Shiv Charan @ Kalli v.
State & Ors. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court upheld the order
dated 8th January, 2019, passed by MM-01, North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi in the proceedings arising from case FIR No. 244/1999 of P.S. Narela,
Delhi, registered under Sections 419, 420 and 120B of IPC.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
1
“CrPC”
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 1 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
2.1. On 17th July, 1999, a complaint was lodged by Shiv Charan @ Kalli
(the Complainant/Petitioner), which culminated in registration of FIR No.
244/1999 under Sections 419, 420, and 120B of IPC. In his complaint, the
Petitioner alleged that while his late father, Kartar Singh, was contesting a
case for Bhumidhari rights, Jitender Rana and Virender Singh (Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3), who had access to all relevant case details, used to
accompany him. As Kartar Singh was unwell, Jitender offered to assist in
securing Bhumidhari rights for the land, following which the land could be
sold. Allegedly, Kartar Singh agreed to sell the land to Jitender for INR
1,50,000 per acre.
2.2. The Petitioner claimed that a General Power of Attorney2 was
executed in favour of Jitender, and a bank account in Kartar Singh’s name
was opened. However, the cheque book of the said account was retained by
Jitender and Virender after obtaining Kartar Singh’s signatures. The
Petitioner further alleged that these individuals continued visiting their
house, repeatedly obtaining Kartar Singh’s signatures under the pretext of
facilitating the Bhumidhari process. Eventually, they stopped coming
altogether.
2.3. In 1998, during a visit by the Patwari to their village, the Petitioner
and his father inquired about the status of the land. They were informed that
Kartar Singh had become the Bhumidhar; however, the land had already
been acquired, and they could now collect their compensation cheque. Upon
visiting the SDM’s office, they were informed that Kartar Singh had already
received the said cheque. When they raised objections, they were advised to
verify transactions through the bank account. On checking, they discovered
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 2 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
that although the cheque had been deposited into Kartar Singh’s account, the
entire amount had been transferred the very next day to the accounts of
Jitender Rana and Aman Singh (Respondent No. 4), through cheques
purportedly signed by Kartar Singh.
2.4. The Petitioner alleged that Jitender Rana, Virender Singh, Aman
Singh, and Vijay Singh (Respondent No. 5), who was the bank manager and
also Jitender’s uncle, had conspired to cheat Kartar Singh. By impersonation
and forging his signatures, they allegedly siphoned off the entire
compensation amount. It was further claimed that although Kartar Singh
owned only 16 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land, these individuals fraudulently
secured compensation for 19 Bighas and 8 Biswas by fabricating the
records.
2.5. On 11th August, 1999, SI S.M. Sharma of the Anti-Forgery Section
(EOW), Crime Branch, registered the FIR at P.S. Narela (Crime Branch) and
commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, documents
were seized from Kartar Singh’s bank, the Land Acquisition Collector’s
office, revenue authorities, and the office of the Sub-Registrar. The accused
persons were arrested, their specimen signatures were taken, and relevant
documents were sent to FSL for examination. Upon completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer3 filed a charge sheet against Jitender,
Aman, and Virender for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,
and 120B of IPC.
2.6. After taking cognizance, the Magistrate issued summons to the
accused persons, including Vijay Singh, who was cited as a witness. Copies
2
“GPA”
3
“IO”
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 3 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
of the charge sheet were supplied. On 16th November, 2002, charges were
framed against the accused under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section
120B of IPC, while they were discharged from the remaining offences. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of
its case, examined 12 witnesses.
2.7. Based on the evidence led, the MM-01, North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi, by judgment dated 8th January, 2019, acquitted the Respondents of
the offences under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 120B IPC.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, the Petitioner as a Complainant preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed
by the impugned order, thereby affirming the order of acquittal.
3. The Petitioner’s counsel contends that both the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court have proceeded erroneously and failed to properly
appreciate the evidence adduced during trial. He submits that the Petitioner,
through his testimony, proved the allegations made in the complaint and
specifically detailed the role of each accused at the relevant time. The Trial
Court failed to consider that the Petitioner had narrated the entire sequence
of events accurately, and that there was no reason to discard or doubt his
testimony merely because he is the son of the person allegedly defrauded.
4. He further submits that the Trial Court overlooked the fact that the
FSL Report was duly proved by PW1, a Senior Scientific Officer. There was
no reason to disbelieve PW1, whose testimony remained consistent even
during cross-examination. Moreover, the onus to rebut the FSL Report lay
upon the accused persons, which they failed to discharge.
5. The Petitioner additionally argues that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate that the accused had withdrawn the compensation amount by
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 4 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
forging the signature of his late father on the cheque, which is apparent from
the FSL Report. The Trial Court erred in concluding that the Investigating
Officer had obtained the specimen signatures of Kartar Singh even before
the filing of the complaint. It is emphasized that both the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court failed to properly evaluate the facts and evidence on record.
6. According to the Petitioner, the accused persons had conspired
amongst themselves to fraudulently withdraw the entire amount of land
acquisition compensation by forging cheques and using a forged voucher
allegedly issued by the concerned authority. Therefore, it is urged, the
offences under Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 120B of IPC stood
established and duly proved by evidence.
7. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. At the outset, it
must be emphasized that this Court is exercising its revisional jurisdiction
against an order of acquittal confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. In
light of the same, it becomes pertinent to highlight the circumscribed scope
of the Court’s revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Pandey4, highlighted that the
purpose of the revisional power is to correct a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction of law. Such revisional powers can only be exercised in cases
where there is perversity or arbitrariness or miscarriage of justice. The High
Court, in revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a court of appeal to re-
appreciate the evidence and evaluate the findings of the lower courts. In
State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri5, the Supreme
Court underscored the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, to
4
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1786.
5
(1999) 2 SCC 452.
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 5 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
the following effect:
“5. ……… In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory
jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of
justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the
power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second
appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be
appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come
to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been
appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal,
unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court
which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of
justice………….”
8. Bearing in mind the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Court
now proceed to examine whether the reasoning of the Appellate Court,
declining to interfere with an acquittal, was justified.
9. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
“8. Regarding the first contention the Ld. Counsel for the appellant
submits that the handwriting report Ex. PW1/D has been wrongly
rejected as there were no basis for rejecting the same, as the
testimony of PW1 is trustworthy and there is no reason to discard the
same.
As per the initial complaint Ex. PW6/A, which is dated
17.07.99 and on the basis of which FIR was registered on 11.08.99 it
was mentioned in the said complaint that the father of the complainant
Shiv Charan namely Kartar Singh died on 03.07.99, whereas as per
the specimen signatures of the deceased Kartar Singh, Ex. PW1/B1 to
B6 the same is stated to have been taken on 02.06.99, prior to his
death and even prior to the registration of the FIR.
The specimen thumb impressions of the deceased Kartar Singh
were also similarly taken on 02.06.99, prior to the death of the
deceased Kartar Singh and prior to the initiation of the investigation
on 11.08.99. Since the specimen signatures and thumb impressions of
the deceased are pre-dated prior to the commencement of the
investigation and the same could have only been taken, after the
registration of the FIR and not prior to the same.
9. The IO PW12 in his cross-examination has admitted that he did
not knew any of the party / person concerning this case prior to filing
of the complaint Ex. PW6/A on 17.07.99 and after receiving of the
complaint, he conducted preliminary inquiry till registration of the
FIR i.e. on 11.08.99.
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 6 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
It is not clear if the complaint itself was received on 17.07.99,
how IO could have obtained the specimen handwriting of the deceased
Kartar Singh on 02.06.99. Further the observations made by the Ld.
Trial Court in para 15 are reproduced once again:
15. The report of specimen signatures and hand writing is
proved by prosecution as Ex.Pw1/D. The findings of
handwriting/signatures expert records that the sample signatures
and admitted signatures of Kartar Singh do not match with
signatures in cheques Ex.Pw1/A4 and A6, sample signatures card
Ex.pw1/A10, registered GPA in favour of Jitender Rana
Ex.Pw1/A11 and account opening form of Kartar Singh
Ex.Pw1/A12. However, these signatures matched with signatures of
Kartar Singh in Ex.PW1/A2 and Ex.PW1/A3 i.e surety bond and
affidavit of Kartar Singh filed for taking the award money. There is
no finding on signature Q1 which is in revenue receipt of award
money.
As observed by Ld. Trial Court, this finding suggests that the
deceased Kartar Singh did not execute any GPA in favour of accused
Jitender Rana neither he opened bank account, therefore, his
signatures on the account opening form and specimen signature does
not match with the admitted signatures of Kartar, Singh, which would
mean that both the bank accounts as well as GPA are forged.
10. However, as per the testimony of PW6 complainant Shiv
Charan, who has deposed in his examination in chief that the GPA
was executed by his father in favour of Jitender and accused Virender
and they also got his signatures on blank documents. They also took
his father to the bank, opened his account in the said bank, they kept
the pass book / cheque book with them.
He was subjected to cross-examination. In his cross-
examination, he has deposed that deal between his father and accused
Jitender for land @ 1.5 lakhs per acre took place in his presence. He
was also having knowledge that two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each had
been received in the account of his father from the account of Jitender
in lieu of selling land. They had not raised any objection regarding
keeping of cheque book by accused persons.
11. Therefore, this version of PW6 does not gel with the report of
the handwriting expert PW1 as Ex. PW1/B and is contradictory to the
same. As rightly observed by Ld. Trial Court, at one place the
signatures of the deceased Kartar Singh in admitted documents are
matching with the questioned signatures and at other places they are
not matching.
Further, the same is contrary to the case propounded by PW6
complainant as discussed above and there is a glaring irregularity in
the collection of the specimen signatures of the deceased Kartar
Singh, which are predated prior to the commencement of the
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 7 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
investigation or even receipt of the complaint, which has not been
explained by the prosecution, how this could have been done,
especially when the IO was not conversant with the complainant or
the accused party prior to 17.07.99.
xxx xxx xxx
13. The probative force of the testimonial deposition of PW6
complainant Shiv Charan has been greatly dented by the above
answers given by him in his cross-examination, as he had even denied
his signatures on the admitted documents including affidavits,
compromise deeds filed before the Hon’ble High Court and also on the
application u/S. 320 CrPC for compounding moved before the court of
then Ld. MM.
He even denied his signatures on the vakalatnama and had the
audacity of denying the fact that he had appeared in the Hon’ble High
Court on 13.02.2007 in connection with the quashing of the present
case. Despite being shown the said order, he denied that he never
went to the Hon’ble High Court on the said date with regard to the
quashing.
He was also put the application u/S. 320 CrPC moved before
the court of Ld. MM, but he stated that he cannot admit or deny due to
lapse of time, whether he appeared in the said case and told the court
that he had compromised the matter for a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs. Even
his demeanor was also recorded by the Ld. Trial Court by observing :
Court observation : The witness is thinking over on all the
questions put to him as well as the documents and trying to evade
the answers to the same. He is also taking long pause.
xxx xxx xxx
15. With regard to the GPA Ex. PW1/A11, which has been duly
registered with the office of Sub Registrar, the IO PW12 in his cross-
examination had admitted that complainant never challenged GPA by
filing a suit for cancellation of GPA or by moving an application
before the sub registrar. He further deposed that as per his
investigations, application Ex. PW1/C8 (dated 20.01.1999) for
collecting compensation was moved by someone impersonating
Kartar Singh.
He also admitted it as correct that he had filed Ex. PW1/C8 as
document which bears the admitted signatures of Kartar Singh. As per
his investigation application Ex. PW1/G9 was moved by Kartar Singh
himself and it bears his signatures only.
16. Therefore, the IO also had admitted in his cross-examination
that he had sent the application for collecting the compensation, as
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 8 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
admitted document of deceased Kartar Singh thereby further denting
the case of the prosecution that the compensation had been collected
by the accused persons in a surreptitious manner. Further such like
GPA and other documents in the shape of agreement of sell and
receipt were very much vogue in those days in Delhi to avoid the
payment of stamp duty. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural in
execution of the said general power of attorney in favour of one of the
accused during those days.
17. Even otherwise, it is the case of prosecution itself that the said
power of attorney had been executed by the deceased Kartar Singh
though by deception, therefore, though the said General: Power of
Attorney may not have conveyed any title in favour of the person for
which it was executed, as the same was only an agency agreement to
act on behalf of the deceased Kartar Singh.
However, till date no suit seeking cancellation of the said
power of attorney had been filed on the ground of undue influence or
fraud. In any case, the trial in present case was only confined to the
extent i.e. to find out the culpability of the accused persons and
deciding the title was beyond the scope of the said trial.
18. From the documents seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A and
seized cheques Ex. PW1/G1 to 010 and other documents which are
Ex. PW7/A to Ex. PW7/G regarding the compensation and also the
document Ex. PW1/A1 to A3 and other bank documents, which are Ex.
PW1/A8 to A12 and other documents pertaining to the bank account
of Delhi State Cooperative Bank belonging to the deceased Kartar
Singh and that of accused Jitender Rana and the bank statement of
account of deceased Kartar Singh Ex. PW8/G and that of accused
persons Ex. PW8/H, it appears that the accused persons may have
taken advantage of the illiteracy of the deceased Kartar Singh by
alluring him into executing certain documents in the shape of general
power of attorney, bank account under misconception of the actual
amount of the property in question or the compensation, which he was
going to receive from his compensation case with the Land
Acquisition Collector or that he may have required money
instantaneously for his needs.
But the fact remains that neither the deceased Kartar Singh
nor any of his legal heirs had challenged the GPA or any other
document in civil court by filing of suit for cancellation of GPA or by
moving an appropriate application before the concerned Sub
Registrar seeking cancellation of the said GPA.
19. The undue haste in which the cheque of Rs. 54 Lakhs received
from Land Acquisition Collector was deposited into the account of
deceased Kartar Singh on 30.07.99 and with utmost haste by which
the said money was transferred into the account of Jitender Rana and
into the another account of Rana Building Material Suppliers
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 9 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
proprietor Aman Singh within a span of 1-2 days raises some sort of
suspicion regarding the culpability of the accused persons having
dishonestly inducing the deceased Kartar Singh.
However, it is settled proposition of criminal law that the
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, mere
suspicion or strong suspicion is not enough to convict the accused
persons, as there is a lot of distance to be traversed between the
yardstick of strong suspicion to the destination of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to reach, in the
present case.” [SIC]
10. As can be seen from the above extract, the Appellate Court has
meticulously examined the evidence which was duly analysed by the Trial
Court. The Appellate Court, while going through the handwriting expert
report and the specimen signatures allegedly taken from the deceased Kartar
Singh, noticed a glaring and unexplained anomaly that the that the specimen
signatures and thumb impressions are stated to have been obtained on 02nd
June, 1999, well before the registration of the FIR on 11 th August, 1999 and
even prior to the filing of the initial complaint on 17 th July, 1999. The
Investigating Officer (PW12) himself admitted during cross-examination
that he had no knowledge of the parties involved prior to the complaint.
Thus, the prosecution has failed to offer any plausible explanation as to how
specimen signatures of a deceased person could have been procured at a
time when the investigation had not even commenced. The Appellate Court
rightly noted that such procedural irregularities cast a doubt on the
authenticity and evidentiary value of the handwriting expert report (Ex.
PW1/D), which is premised on these questionable specimen signatures.
11. This Court finds no fault with the reasoning adopted by the Appellate
Court in discrediting the testimony of PW6 (the Petitioner), and agrees that
its conclusions are firmly grounded in the well-established principles
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 10 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
governing appreciation of witness credibility. It is settled that the testimony
of a witness must be consistent, trustworthy, and withstand the test of cross-
examination to inspire confidence. PW6, who is the Complainant, and the
prime witness, not only gave contradictory statements during his cross-
examination but also persistently evaded direct answers. He denied his own
signatures on multiple admitted documents, including affidavits,
compromise deeds, and applications under Section 320 of CrPC filed before
judicial forums. The demeanor of PW6, as recorded by the Trial Court,
marked by long pauses, evasiveness, and deliberate attempts to withhold
straightforward responses, further undermines his credibility.
12. Indeed, as held by the Appellate Court, the GPA was duly registered
with the office of the Sub-Registrar. At no stage, the Complainant or the
legal heirs of the deceased Kartar took an action seeking its cancellation on
grounds of fraud, coercion, or undue influence. Even the Investigating
Officer (PW12), during his cross-examination, conceded that no challenge
had ever been made to the GPA before any competent authority. Moreover,
he himself treated certain documents bearing the signatures of Kartar Singh,
previously alleged to be forged, as admitted documents during the course of
investigation. This clearly dilutes the prosecution’s claim of forgery and
undermines the assertion that the accused had impersonated or
misrepresented the deceased.
13. In the above facts, the Appellate Court gave due consideration to the
possibility that the accused may have taken advantage of the deceased
Kartar Singh’s illiteracy and lured him into executing documents related to a
bank account and the GPA under a misconception of the compensation
amount he was entitled to receive. However, despite such a possibility, the
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 11 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
Court rightly concluded that such a scenario, while questionable, does not
satisfy the threshold required for establishing criminal liability. The absence
of any contemporaneous objection or legal action by Kartar Singh, or his
heirs, undermines the prosecution’s narrative.
14. It is noted that the sum of INR 54 lakhs, purportedly received by the
deceased Kartar Singh as compensation, was transferred into the accounts of
the accused within a short span of 1-2 days. While such transactions may
appear suspicious, however, mere suspicion, however strong, cannot form
the basis for a conviction. The settled position in criminal jurisprudence is
that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion,
no matter how grave or plausible, cannot substitute the standard of legal
proof required to prove guilt. In the present case, there is no conclusive
evidence demonstrating that the accused dishonestly induced the deceased to
part with his compensation money through deceit or coercion. The
prosecution has not led any reliable direct evidence to show that the
transactions were carried out without the deceased’s consent or through
manipulation of documents. On the contrary, as already discussed, no
contemporaneous complaint or legal action was initiated by the deceased or
his legal heirs seeking cancellation of the GPA or recovery of the alleged
misappropriated funds. Therefore, while the swiftness of movement of the
funds may raise eyebrows, it falls short of establishing criminal intent in a
manner that satisfies the threshold of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned decision of the Appellate
Court confirming the order of acquittal is founded on the well-established
principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and mere suspicion or a strong suspicion is not enough for conviction.
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 12 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25
16. In light of the above, the findings of the Appellate Court, as well as
the Trial Court, are rooted in proper administration of evidence and call for
no interference.
17. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed along with pending
application(s), if any.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 28, 2025/ab
CRL.REV.P. 1189/2019 Page 13 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:16:25