MUKESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges an order on charge dated 24.8.2006 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed framing of charges under Section 120B/419/420/465/467/468/471 IPC.

(2.) The FIR, lodged in 2004 by one Manoj Goyal alleged that pursuant to a transaction, a plot was purchased on 19.3.2002. The vendor was allegedly one Gurbachan Lal. The further allegations in the FIR were that the petitioner, had been disclosed as a general power of attorney/special power of attorney holder, of the owner of the plot. The documents find mention in the sale deed registered by the vendor in favour of the purchaser Manoj Goyal. The FIR further alleged that in 2004, the complainant discovered that multi-storeyed flats had come up on the plot and, upon enquiry it was revealed that the plot was owned by someone else; he was victim of impersonation.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a victim in the entire episode. He submitted that he had entered into a transaction in 2001 pursuant to which the owner had agreed to sell the plot. However, when he became suspicious, he lodged an FIR in 2001 with the authorities at Noida. Learned counsel relied upon a copy of the said document. He also relied upon the further fact that the document in question (the registered deed said to have been executed by impersonator, Devki Nandan) specifically mentioned about the role of Mukesh Sharma as a GPA holder and that the said document was surrendered and cancelled. In these circumstances it was claimed that the petitioner had no role and could not have been charged.