Case No.

3411/2017
FIR No. 273/2014
State Vs. Sushant Gupta
PS Saket

28.03.2019

I am functioning with only one Stenographer.

Present: Sh. Gyan Chand Soni, Ld. APP for the State.
Both the accused with counsel Sh. Amit Khanna.
Counsel for complainant.

Arguments on charge heard.

Very briefly stated, since detailed reasons are not required
to be given at the stage of framing of charge, the case of the prosecution
is that the Power of Attorney for institution of proceedings, executed by
Sh. Mahavir Saran Aggarwal and Smt. Pushpa Aggarwal, the parents of
the accused before me, was forged by the accused persons. To show that
the said Power of Attorney is forged, sample signatures of Sh. Mahavir
Saran Aggarwal were obtained and the same were sent to the FSL, which
gave a report that the signatures on the sample do not match with the
signatures on the Power of Attorney. The other executant of the Power of
Attorney, Smt. Pushpa Aggarwal, however, admitted her signatures on
the same and in any event, there has been no investigation on whether her
signatures were forged or not.
 ­2­
Counsel for the accused persons argued that the sample
cheque used for the said purpose is firstly, of a date after the death of the
executor and secondly, the signatures on the same may itself be forged.
However, counsel for the complainant/Ld. APP submits that it could have
been a post dated cheque.
I have put to the counsel for the accused whether any
complaint/FIR has been lodged by the accused persons claiming that the
sample cheque used for sample was also forged. Ld. Counsel for accused
has submitted that no such complaint has been made by the accused
persons. In view thereof, I have to assume that no dispute has been raised
before any authority that the said sample cheque is not genuine.
Therefore, there is sufficient material for me, in the form of expert
opinion, to conclude that the signatures of Sh. Mahavir Saran Aggarwal
are forged. However, there is no material to show that the forgery was
actually committed by accused persons as the FSL has not given any such
finding.
Next, photocopy of this very Power of Attorney produced
before the court where maintenance petition was filed by the accused
persons on behalf of the alleged executor of the said Power of Attorney.
Counsel for the accused argued that this photocopy was
filed after Sh. Mahavir Saran Aggarwal had already expired and
therefore, the maintenance petition was at that stage only pending for
 ­3­
Smt. Pushpa Aggarwal and had lost its relevance as far as Sh. Mahavir
Saran Aggarwal was concerned.
I do not agree with the said submission for two reasons.
Firstly, petition was initially filed on behalf of both Sh. Mahavir Saran
Aggarwal and Smt. Pushpa Aggarwal on the premise that the accused was
authorized to file such a petition. It is immaterial whether the said Power
of Attorney was produced at later stage after death of one of the party.
Secondly, once a document is held to be forged, it becomes immaterial if
there are multiple executors, and the forgery is only qua one of the
executors. Using that document is an offence. It is immaterial at this stage
to see whether any benefit could have been derived by accused persons
since Sh. Mahavir Saran Aggarwal had already expired. Using a forged
document in court is an offence. Therefore, charge under Section 471
read with Section 466 of IPC is made out.
Since today final arguments have to be heard in a 10 years
old case, only order on charge has been passed today and the formal
charge shall be framed on the next date.
List this matter for framing of formal charge and recording
of evidence on 15.07.2019.
Complainant be summoned.
(Harjyot Singh Bhalla)
ACMM (South),
New Delhi/28.03.2019