Sanjeev Khanna Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....this presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence. with regard to the present facts, the high court found that the defence raised by the accused was not probable. in respect of the accused's stand that he had lost a blank cheque bearing his signature, the high court noted that in the instructions sent by the accused to his bank for stopping payment, there is a reference to cheque no. 0886322, dated 20-7-1999. this is in conflict with the complainant's version wherein the accused had given instructions for stopping payment in respect of the same cheque, albeit one which was dated 8-2-2001. the high court also noted that if the accused had indeed lost a blank cheque bearing his signature, the question of his mentioning the date of the cheque as 20-7-1999 could not arise. furthermore, during the cross-examination of the complainant, it was suggested on behalf of the accused that the complainant had the custody of the cheque since 1998. this suggestion indicates that the accused was aware of the fact that the complainant had the cheque, thereby weakening his claim of having lost a blank cheque. once the cheque..........was filed, after considering the arguments of the prosecution and the petitioner observed that no charge was made out against the accused under section 468/471 ipc. however, a charge under section 420 of ipc was made out. against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision before learned sessions judge. the learned sessions judge vide a detailed order dismissed the revision petition discussing provisions of law as well as precedents on the issue. this petition has been filed assailing the order of learned sessions judge.2. it is the settled law that section 482 cr. p.c. cannot be used as a second revision petition and the high court should exercise its inherent powers under section 482 cr. p.c. sparingly and in rare cases where it feels that unless power is used justice shall stand defeated. it is not the case in hand. the accused in this case had obtained mutation of the property in his name, left behind by his father, by filing false affidavit, declaration etc. before dda that he was the sole legal heir while other legal heirs of his father were very much there and his father had died intestate. by this mutation dda acknowledged him as the sole proprietor of the.....

Judgment:

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

1. By present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed an order passed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner was booked under Section 420/468/471 IPC vide FIR No. 524 of 2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubark Pur. The learned MM, before whom charge-sheet was filed, after considering the arguments of the prosecution and the petitioner observed that no charge was made out against the accused under Section 468/471 IPC. However, a charge under Section 420 of IPC was made out. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision before learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge vide a detailed order dismissed the revision petition discussing provisions of law as well as precedents on the issue. This petition has been filed assailing the order of learned Sessions Judge.

2. It is the settled law that Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be used as a Second Revision Petition and the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. sparingly and in rare cases where it feels that unless power is used justice shall stand defeated. It is not the case in hand. The accused in this case had obtained mutation of the property in his name, left behind by his father, by filing false affidavit, declaration etc. before DDA that he was the sole legal heir while other legal heirs of his father were very much there and his father had died intestate. By this mutation DDA acknowledged him as the sole proprietor of the property, however, put a rider that if the declaration was found false, the mutation shall be cancelled. Later on other legal heirs discovered about this forgery made by the petitioner and made application to DDA and the mutation was reversed.

3. I consider it is not a case where no cheating has taken place. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since mutation was reversed and mutation was not a proof of ownership, no case under Section 420 IPC was made out. I think recovery of the cheated property back does not take away the charge of cheating. Mutation may not be a proof of title in certain circumstances, but, mutation of leasehold property registered with DDA in his own name would have given a right to the petitioner to claim the entire property under his sole ownership. I therefore consider that this ground is not available to the petitioner. This petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.