-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a significant development, the High Court upheld the decision of the Revisional Court to delete charges of forgery against respondent No. 2, Mr. Vishal Gupta, in a property dispute case. The judgment, pronounced on July 25, 2023, shed light on the court’s power to assess evidence at the stage of framing charges.
The case, titled Vijay Pal Sharma vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., revolved around a property transaction in which the complainant, Mr. Vijay Pal Sharma (petitioner), accused Mr. Gupta (respondent No. 2) of inducing him to purchase a plot that allegedly did not belong to Mr. Gupta. The petitioner claimed to have paid Rs. 7,80,000 as earnest money and the remaining amount to Mr. Gupta for the plot, but later found the possession of the said plot with another person.
The Trial Court had earlier framed charges against Mr. Gupta under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Revisional Court deleted the charges of forgery – Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC – against Mr. Gupta.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar stated, “A person is said to make a ‘false document’ if he satisfies one of the three conditions, as noticed hereinbefore and provided for under the said section. The sale deeds executed by Mr. Gupta clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of ‘false documents’.”
The High Court emphasized that for a person to be charged with forgery, they must be the maker of the forged document. The judgment cited various relevant legal precedents to support this position.
Addressing the petitioner’s contention of not being given an opportunity to address arguments before the Revisional Court, Justice Bhatnagar clarified, “The petitioner was afforded due opportunity at the time of hearing of the arguments by the Ld. Revisional Court.”
Regarding the petitioner’s plea to quash the direction to register an FIR against him, the court stated, “Petitioner has neither addressed any arguments nor placed on record any document regarding the status of the FIR directed to be registered against him… No relief can be granted as far as this prayer is concerned at this stage.”
The judgment also reiterated the principles for framing charges, emphasizing that the court’s role is to determine whether a prima facie case exists and not to weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial.
The High Court dismissed the present petition, upholding the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court. The trial court record will now be sent back to the lower court with a certified copy of this judgment.
Date of Decision: JULY 25, 2023
VIJAY PAL SHARMA vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Vijay_Pal_Sharma_vs_State_Of_Nct_Of_Delhi_Anr_on_25_July_2023_Del.HC_.pdf"]
