RAMAN KAPOOR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dtd. 22/7/2020 passed in Crl. Rev. P. No. 121/2019 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Revisional Court has upheld the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide which the closure report was accepted and the protest petition filed by the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts, as noted by the Revisional Court, are as under :-

(3.) During the investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained specimen signatures of the petitioner as well as the accused namely Arun Kapoor and Sarla Devi, the brother and mother of the complainant respectively. The signatures of the aforesaid persons were initially sent to FSL, Malviya, New Delhi however, as per the FSL Report dtd. 8/12/2000, the result was inconclusive. The FSL Report noted that the signatures on the applications for opening bank accounts were not of the petitioner, however no authorship could be fixed on respondents based on the specimen signatures collected and sent for examination. On the basis of the aforesaid, a closure report was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition dtd. 8/7/2004 and vide order dtd. 28/1/2005, the Investigating Agency was directed to conduct further investigation. Again, an investigation was carried out and expert opinion sought from FSL, Rohini, however once again, the results as per the FSL Report dtd. 1/2/2010 remained inconclusive. Another closure report was filed on 25/4/2013 resulting in filing of second protest petition by the petitioner. It was pointed by the petitioner that his father may have forged the signatures, and in furtherance of this suggestion, the specimen signatures of the petitioner's father were sent to CFSL, Chandigarh. On petitioner's request, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed CFSL, Chandigarh to examine the disputed and admitted specimen signatures of the accused persons. However, as per the results contained in FSL Report dtd. 20/1/2014, no conclusion could be reached that the petitioner's father had forged the signatures. This prompted the petitioner to file a third protest petition to have the specimens examined by a private forensic expert at his cost.