Sh. Syed Ashraf Vs. State (Through Cbi)

Sh. Syed Ashraf vs State (Through Cbi)

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Nov 23, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/711433

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/711433
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: J.P. Singh, J.
Decided On: Nov 23, 2005
Case Number: Crl. M.C. 5837/2005 and CRLMA 11496-97/2005
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973Section 482 - Petition for quashing of proceedings registered under Sections 417, 468, 469 & 471 of Penal Code, 1860--The CMM applied its mind and passed a detailed order to come to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out--The order also examined in revision and affirmed-...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 417, 468, 469 and 471

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sh. Syed Ashraf

Advocate H.R. Khan Suhel and; V.S. Rawat, Advs

Respondent

State (Through Cbi)

Advocate Harish Gulati, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 417, 468, 469 and 471
Reported In: 126(2006)DLT100; 2006(86)DRJ110

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973section 482 - petition for quashing of proceedings registered under sections 417, 468, 469 & 471 of penal code, 1860--the cmm applied its mind and passed a detailed order to come to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out--the order also examined in revision and affirmed--the annexure and documents being filed with petition under section 482 can only be gone into at the time of trial--petition, rejected. - - 5. by now it is well established that the high court can interfere under 482 cr. 6. the concerned cmm has applied mind and has written a detailed order and has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case under section 417/468/469 and 471 ipc against the accused (petitioner herein). the first revision court has re-examined the matter and as also passed a well reasoned and detailed order......i have heard shri h.r. khan suhel, learned counsel for the petitioner and shri harish gulati, learned counsel for cbi, on the point of admission, and have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents placed on the file.3. briefly the facts are that initially on the basis of source information an fir was registered under section 417/468/469 and 471 ipc because some letter dated 26.11.1987 purported to have been written by shri v.p. singh, the then member of the rajya sabha on his letter head addressed to the president of india alleging therein the involvement of shri arun kumar nehru in the bofors gun deal. the letter was got attested by one smt. shantha, an advocate/notary from bangalore. thereafter, shri v.p. singh became prime minister and late shri devi lal became deputy prime minister, the matter arose before the parliament. the photocopy of the said letter was sent to shri devi lal and on receiving the photocopy, letter shri v.p. singh said that the letter was a fabricated document and ordered a cbi enquiry into the matter. the letter was found to be forged as at that point of time shri v.p. singh was not residing at 28 lodhi estate, i.e., the address given on the letter head. shri v.p. singh said that no such letter was addressed to the president. further, it was never received by the presidential secretariat.4. smt. shantha, advocate/attorney also denied that she had attested any such photostat document. in the petition, there is reference to several other documents and annexures which have been attached with the petition and a detailed history of the case has been given including that earlier a closure report was filed but on reinvestigation, the challen has again been filed without any substantial change in the allegations.5. by now it is well established that the high court can interfere under 482 cr.p.c. when there is a glaring abuse of the process of law but the high court will not act as an appeal or a revision court under section 482.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping/quashing proceedings under Section 417/468/469/471 IPC. The case was registered by CBI and charge has been framed by C.M.M., Delhi. The said order of framing charge was challenged in a criminal revision which has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide a detailed order dated 7.10.2005.

2. I have heard Shri H.R. Khan Suhel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Harish Gulati, learned counsel for CBI, on the point of admission, and have gone through the impugned order and copies of the documents placed on the file.

3. Briefly the facts are that initially on the basis of source information an FIR was registered under Section 417/468/469 and 471 IPC because some letter dated 26.11.1987 purported to have been written by Shri V.P. Singh, the then Member of the Rajya Sabha on his letter head addressed to the President of India alleging therein the involvement of Shri Arun Kumar Nehru in the Bofors Gun Deal. The letter was got attested by one Smt. Shantha, an Advocate/Notary from Bangalore. Thereafter, Shri V.P. Singh became Prime Minister and late Shri Devi Lal became Deputy Prime Minister, the matter arose before the Parliament. The photocopy of the said letter was sent to Shri Devi Lal and on receiving the photocopy, letter Shri V.P. Singh said that the letter was a fabricated document and ordered a CBI enquiry into the matter. The letter was found to be forged as at that point of time Shri V.P. Singh was not residing at 28 Lodhi Estate, i.e., the address given on the letter head. Shri V.P. Singh said that no such letter was addressed to the President. Further, it was never received by the Presidential Secretariat.

4. Smt. Shantha, Advocate/Attorney also denied that she had attested any such photostat document. In the petition, there is reference to several other documents and annexures which have been attached with the petition and a detailed history of the case has been given including that earlier a closure report was filed but on reinvestigation, the challen has again been filed without any substantial change in the allegations.

5. By now it is well established that the High Court can interfere under 482 Cr.P.C. when there is a glaring abuse of the process of law but the High Court will not act as an appeal or a revision court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against every order.

6. The concerned CMM has applied mind and has written a detailed order and has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case under Section 417/468/469 and 471 IPC against the accused (petitioner herein). The first revision court has re-examined the matter and as also passed a well reasoned and detailed order.

7. In my view all the annexures and documents attached with the petition cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These have to be proved and tested at the time of trial after due cross-examination of the witnesses of each side.

8. Considering all the facts and circumstance, I do not find it a fit case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is, thereforee, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Sh. Syed Ashraf vs State (Through Cbi) Same Subject Criminal Same Judge J.P. Singh, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482; Indian Pena...

Criminal