SANJAY MAHAJAN Vs. STATE NAD ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of FIR No. 146/97 under Sections 420/468/471/506/120-B/34 Indian Penal Code PS Preet Vihar against the petitioners. Said FIR No. 146/97 was lodged by Ms. Mina Gupta, a Stenographer (respondent No. 2), inter alia, alleging that house No. 17, Defence Enclave, Delhi belonged to her father who died on 11th April, 1985. She is the only heir of him. On 12th April, 1995, she called Rakesh Mahajan, a property dealer, for letting out room(s) in the said house. On 22nd April, 1995, she let out one room to Sanjay Mahajan, petitioner No. 1 on a monthly rental of Rs. 2,000.00 . On 23rd May, 1995, she left for Calcutta to see her relatives. On 28th June, 1995 when she came back, she found that petitioner No. 1 had given that room to one Satish Loomba on receiving Rs. 3 lacs from him. Before her departure to Calcutta, petitioner No. 1 had constructed a room on the backside of the house in place of garrage and when she objected, he assured to pay rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 3,000.00 per month. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 further constructed 3-4 rooms in the back portion of the house and in September 1995, he started using them and also sub-let some of them. After vacation of the room by said Satish Loomba on 3rd May, 1997, possession thereof was taken by petitioner No. 1. She had opened account No. 3540 with State Bank of India, Swasthya Vihar branch in the year 1985 which was later on closed as she did not deposit any amount therein. In January 1997, she was called by the manager of Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar branch who enquired about the business she was doing as huge amounts were being deposited in her account. She told him that she had not opened any account in that bank. After checking the bank records, manager told her that she had been introduced by petitioner No. 1.

(2.) Bank staff advised her to get a case registered against petitioner No. 1 as he was doing fictitious business in her name regarding which she was unaware. Thereafter, she told petitioner No. 1 to accompany her to the said branch of Syndicate Bank upon which he showed a revolver and warned her that if she visited the Syndicate Bank again, he would shoot her. He also warned her not to speak anything against him. After 2-3 days, she again visited the said bank and gave in writing to close the account in her name. She has come to know that petitioner No. 1 and Manu Bansal, Petitioner No. 2 have got the said house transferred in their names on the strength of forged documents. Petitioners have further forged her signatures for the purpose of opening account in her name in the said bank and, therefore, legal action may be taken against them.

(3.) Petitioners claim of having purchased aforesaid house No. 17, Defence Enclave from respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 12 lacs, which amount was deposited in account No. 17517 in the name of respondent No. 2 with Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar branch. This amount is alleged to have been withdrawn by respondent No. 2 through cheques dated 7th February, 1997 for Rs. 3 lacs, dated 13th February, 1997 for Rs. 3 lacs, dated 20th February, 1997 for Rs. 3 lacs, dated 25th February, 1997 for Rs. 1 lac, again dated 25th February, 1997 for Rs: 50,000.00 and again dated 25th February, 1997 for Rs. l,50,000.00 . In connection with the sale, respondent No. 2 is stated to have executed Agreement to sell, General power of attorney, Special power of attorney, Will, Possession letter and receipt for Rs. 12 lacs, all dated 29th January, 1997. These documents bearing the thumb impressions in addition to signatures together with specimen thumb impressions of respondent No. 2 S-1 and S-2, were sent for comparison to Fingerprint Bureau, Delhi Police, Delhi. FPB report dated 9th September, 1997 placed at pages 253 to 255 of the trial court record goes to show that the questioned thumb impressions Q2-Don General power of attorney, Q3-B, Q3-C on the Will, Q4- B, Q4-C on the Special power of attorney and Q6-B on the receipt for Rs. 12 lacs, all dated 29th January, 1997 are inter se identical and are further identical with left hand thumb impression marked S-2 of respondent No. 2. In respect of the remaining questioned thumb marks appearing on the said documents, it has been observed in the said report that no opinion can be given regarding them as either they are partial, blurred, smudged or do not disclose sufficient number of ridge details in their relative positions for comparison. Aforesaid documents alongwith said six cheques, account opening form dated 15th January, 1997, specimen signature card on which passport size photograph of respondent No. 2 is affixed pertaining to account No. 17517 in the name of respondent No. 2 with Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar branch allegedly bearing the signatures of respondent No. 2, specimen signatures and writings marked S1 to S19, account opening form in respect of account No. 3540 with State Bank of India, Swasthya Vihar branch and the two cheques dated 26th March, 1997 and 13th February, 1997 drawn in that account admittedly bearing the signatures of respondent No. 2 marked as A1, A1/1, A1/2, A2, A3, A3/1 and A-3/2 etc. were also sent by the Investigating Officer for comparison of signatures to Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi and the report of the Laboratory dated 28th January, 1998 is placed at pages 259 to 261 of the trial court record. This report notices that the person who wrote signatures and writings marked SI to S19, A1, A1/1, A1/2, A2, A3, A3/1 and A-3/2 also wrote the signatures and writings marked Ql to 04, Q6 to Q33 and Q35 to Q86 which include the signatures on aforesaid Agreement to sell, General power of attorney, Will, special power of attorney, Possession letter, receipt of Rs. 12 lacs. Income-tax form No. 34-A, account opening form of Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar branch, specimen signatures given in Syndicate Bank, Nirman Vihar branch and also six cheques for a total sum of Rs. 12 lacs drawn on the said bank. Detailed reasons for arriving at the said conclusion are incorporated in the above report dated 28th January, 1998 itself.