Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar @ Narender Prasad vs Ramesh Kumar Etc on 6 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
DISTRICT EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Prerna Rai, DJS
RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD
Vs.
RAMESH KUMAR ETC
CNR No.: DLET020007692010
CT Cases 52622/2016
PS. Geeta Colony
JUDGMENT
1.) Name of the Complainant : Rajesh Kumar
@ Narender
Kumar,
S/o Sh. Bhullan
Singh, R.o 312-A,
First Floor, Gali
No. 9, New
Lahore Colony,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110031
2.) Name of the accused and parentage: (1) Ramesh
Kumar, s/o Sh.
Bhullan Singh,
PRERNA
RAI R/o 312-A,
Digitally signed
Ground Floor,
by PRERNA RAI
Date: 2026.07.06
Gali No. 9, New
16:40:34 +0530
Lahore Colony,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 1 of 27
(Since, accused
Ramesh Kumar
have already
been expired on
28.12.2023,
therefore,
proceeding qua
him stands
abated vide
order dated
15.04.2024).
(2) Vishal
Kumar, S/o Sh.
Bhullan Singh,
R/o 312-A,
Ground Floor,
Gali No. 9, New
Lahore Colony,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
(3) Maan Singh,
S/o Sh. Khajan
Singh, r/o 198,
Mandoli Extn.,
Shahdara, Delhi
and also at B-13,
Meet Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi.
3.) Offence Complained of : under Section
467/471/34 of IPC
4.) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
PRERNA
RAI 5.) Date of institution of the case : 16.02.2010
Digitally signed
by PRERNA RAI
Date: 2026.07.06
16:40:42 +0530 6.) Final order : Acquittal.
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 2 of 27
7.) Reserved for judgment on : 11.06.2026
8.) Judgment pronounced on : 06.07.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present Judgment, this court shall dispose
of the present complaint filed by the complainant Rajesh Kumar @
Narender Prasad (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) against Vishal
Kumar, Maan Singh and Ramesh Kumar (Since, accused Ramesh
Kumar have already been expired on 28.12.2023, therefore,
proceeding qua him stands abated vide order dated 15.04.2024) and
(hereinafter referred as the ‘accused’).
Brief facts:
2. The present complaint case arises out of a dispute relating
to ownership and alleged fraudulent transfer of an immovable property
bearing Municipal No. 312-A, measuring 50 square yards, forming part of
Khasra No. 39/19, situated in the abadi of New Lahore, Village Khureji
Khas, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi.
3. The case of the complainant, Rajesh Kumar @ Narender
Kumar, is that he and his younger brother, accused Vishal Kumar, jointly
purchased the aforesaid property from one Smt. Chander Kala W/o Sh.
Bhudev Singh, resident of New Lahore Colony, Delhi, on 05.04.1989
through a set of documents including General Power of Attorney,
Agreement to Sell and Receipt. According to the complainant, the entire
transaction was genuine and validly executed in favour of both brothers,
PRERNA
RAI
Digitally signed
by PRERNA RAI CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Date: 2026.07.06
16:40:47 +0530 Page 3 of 27
thereby making them joint owners and co-sharers of the property in equal
proportion.
4. It is alleged that ever since the date of purchase, the
complainant, accused Vishal Kumar and other family members had been
residing in the property and enjoying possession thereof. For several years,
no dispute existed between the parties regarding ownership or possession
of the property. However, according to the complainant, the relationship
between the brothers gradually deteriorated and serious differences arose
in respect of the use, enjoyment and occupation of the property.
5. The complainant has alleged that sometime in the year
2007, accused Vishal Kumar developed a dishonest intention and started
creating obstacles in the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the
complainant. It is further alleged that accused Vishal Kumar began
harassing and humiliating the complainant and attempted to interfere with
his rights in the jointly owned property. Various efforts were allegedly
made by family members and well-wishers to amicably settle the dispute
between the brothers; however, such efforts did not yield any positive
result.
6. Finding no other effective remedy, the complainant
instituted a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction against accused
Vishal Kumar before the competent Civil Court. Through the said suit, the
complainant sought partition of the jointly owned property and also sought
a decree of permanent injunction restraining accused Vishal Kumar from
creating any third-party interest in the property or from dispossessing the
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA RAI
PRERNA
Date:
RAI 2026.07.06
16:40:51
+0530
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 4 of 27
complainant from his share therein. The complainant has stated that the
said civil proceedings remained pending before the competent Court for
adjudication.
7. According to the complainant, after receipt of summons and
notice of the civil suit, accused Vishal Kumar appointed his brother,
namely Ramesh Kumar, as his Special Power of Attorney holder for the
purpose of pursuing and contesting the civil proceedings. It is alleged that
accused Ramesh Kumar thereafter appeared on behalf of accused Vishal
Kumar and filed a written statement before the Civil Court.
8. The complainant has further alleged that during the course
of the civil proceedings, a startling and unexpected claim was raised by
accused Ramesh Kumar. In the written statement filed before the Civil
Court, it was claimed that the property in question had already been sold
by the complainant and accused Vishal Kumar in favour of accused
Ramesh Kumar on 11.10.1989. In support of the said plea, certain
documents purportedly executed on 11.10.1989, namely an Agreement to
Sell, a General Power of Attorney and a Receipt, were produced before
the Civil Court.
9. The complainant has stated that upon learning about the
existence of these documents, he was shocked and surprised, as according
to him, no such transaction had ever taken place. He has categorically
asserted that neither had he sold his share in the property nor had he
Digitally
signed by
executed any document transferring his rights in favour of accused Ramesh
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.07.06
16:40:56
+0530CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 5 of 27
Kumar. The complainant therefore applied for certified copies of the
documents produced before the Civil Court and examined the same.
10. Upon examination of the documents, the complainant
allegedly discovered that the signatures and thumb impressions appearing
thereon and purportedly attributed to him were not genuine. According to
the complainant, the said signatures and thumb impressions were forged
and fabricated. It is his specific allegation that accused Vishal Kumar and
accused Ramesh Kumar, acting in concert and in furtherance of a common
design, prepared false documents in order to create an impression that the
complainant had relinquished and transferred his ownership rights in the
property in favour of accused Ramesh Kumar.
11. The complainant has further alleged that accused Maan
Singh had signed the impugned documents as an attesting witness despite
having knowledge that the complainant had never executed the said
documents. It is alleged that accused Maan Singh knowingly lent support
to the creation and use of the forged documents and thereby facilitated the
commission of the alleged offences.
12. The complainant has asserted that the purpose behind
preparation of the alleged forged documents was to defeat his lawful claim
in the partition suit and to deprive him of his ownership rights in the
property. According to the complainant, the accused persons acted with a
common intention and pursuant to a criminal conspiracy to cause wrongful
RAI
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
Date:
loss to him and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
2026.07.06
16:41:01
+0530CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 6 of 27
13. After obtaining certified copies of the impugned documents
and becoming convinced that the same were forged and fabricated, the
complainant approached the local police authorities and submitted a
complaint detailing the alleged acts of forgery and cheating. However,
according to the complainant, no effective action was taken by the police.
He has alleged that the police officials expressed the view that since a civil
dispute regarding the property was already pending before a Court, the
complainant should seek appropriate remedies through legal proceedings.
14. The complainant has further stated that despite repeated
visits to the police station and repeated requests for registration of a
criminal case, no action was initiated against the accused persons. Feeling
aggrieved by the inaction of the police authorities and alleging commission
of serious cognizable offences, the complainant ultimately approached the
Court by way of the present complaint seeking prosecution of the accused
persons.
15. On the basis of the material placed before it during pre-
summoning proceedings, the Court took cognizance of the alleged offences
and summoned the accused persons to face trial. Upon consideration of the
material available on record, charges under Sections 467/34 IPC and
471/34 IPC came to be framed against accused Vishal Kumar and accused
Maan Singh. The proceedings against accused Ramesh Kumar
subsequently stood abated owing to his demise vide order dated
Digitally
signed by
15.04.2024.
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.07.06
16:41:05
+0530
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 7 of 27
16. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges
framed against them and claimed trial, thereby necessitating the recording
of evidence and adjudication of the matter on merits.
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
17. In order to substantiate its case, the complainant examined
four witnesses. The complainant himself entered the witness box as CW-1
and thereafter examined one attesting witness to the original title
documents, one official witness from the office of the Sub-Registrar and
one forensic expert. The prosecution evidence is discussed hereunder.
18. Testimony of CW-1 Rajesh Kumar @ Narender Kumar
(Complainant) CW-1 Rajesh Kumar @ Narender Kumar entered the
witness box and deposed on oath that he is the complainant in the present
case. He stated that he had jointly purchased property bearing Khasra No.
39/19 measuring 50 square yards, Municipal No. 312-A, situated at New
Lahore Colony, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, along with his younger brother
Vishal Kumar from Smt. Chander Kala on 05.04.1989. He testified that the
relevant title documents were executed in favour of both brothers and
proved the same as Ex. CW1/A (colly), consisting of the General Power of
Attorney, Agreement Deed and Receipt. CW-1 further deposed that after
purchase of the property, he along with accused Vishal Kumar and other
family members started residing therein. According to him, relations
between him and accused Vishal Kumar remained cordial for several
Digitally signed
PRERNA by PRERNA RAI
RAI Date: 2026.07.06
16:41:11 +0530
years; however, in the year 2007, accused Vishal Kumar developed a
dishonest intention and began causing harassment and humiliation to him.
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 8 of 27
He stated that accused Vishal Kumar started compelling him to vacate the
property and created difficulties in his peaceful enjoyment of the jointly
owned premises.
CW-1 further testified that in view of the disputes regarding
ownership and possession of the property, he instituted a suit for partition
and permanent injunction against accused Vishal Kumar before the
competent Civil Court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He stated that the said
civil suit was pending adjudication at the relevant time. The witness further
deposed that after receiving notice of the civil proceedings, accused Vishal
Kumar appointed accused Ramesh Kumar as his Special Power of
Attorney holder to pursue the litigation. According to CW-1, during the
pendency of the civil suit, accused Ramesh Kumar filed a written
statement and, for the first time, disclosed that the property had allegedly
been sold by the complainant and accused Vishal Kumar in his favour on
11.10.1989. CW-1 stated that accused Ramesh Kumar relied upon certain
documents namely an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and
Receipt, all purportedly executed on 11.10.1989. The witness testified that
upon coming to know of these documents, he obtained certified copies
thereof and carefully examined the same. He categorically asserted that he
had never executed any such documents in favour of accused Ramesh
Kumar and had never transferred his ownership rights in the property. The
witness specifically deposed that the signatures and thumb impressions
appearing on the impugned documents were forged and fabricated. He
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
further alleged that accused Vishal Kumar and accused Ramesh Kumar
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.07.06
16:41:16
+0530had fabricated the said documents with the intention of depriving him of
his lawful share in the property. He also alleged that accused Maan SinghCT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 9 of 27
had signed the documents as a witness despite being aware that the
complainant had never executed the same.
The certified copies of the disputed documents were proved
by CW-1 as Ex. CW1/B (colly). He further proved the complaint made by
him to the police authorities as Ex. CW1/C. The witness alleged that
despite approaching the police authorities, no action was taken against the
accused persons. CW-1 asserted that the accused persons had acted in
concert and had committed forgery and cheating for their wrongful gain
and to cause wrongful loss to him.
Thereafter, cross-Examination of CW-1 was conducted by
Learned Counsel for Accused Vishal Kumar. During cross-examination,
CW-1 admitted that he and accused Vishal Kumar had jointly purchased
the property on 05.04.1989 and were equal shareholders therein. He also
admitted that accused Vishal Kumar was his younger brother. The witness
further admitted that accused Ramesh Kumar had been residing on the
ground floor of the property and after his demise, his wife Laxmi and
daughters Roopali and Varsha continued to reside there. He stated that he
was occupying the first and second floors of the property and also had use
of the roof. CW-1 denied the suggestion that accused Vishal Kumar had
never acted dishonestly with regard to the property. He also denied the
suggestion that the accused persons had not forged the signatures and
PRERNA
RAI thumb impressions appearing on the disputed documents. The witness
Digitally signed
by PRERNA RAImaintained throughout his cross-examination that the impugned documents
Date: 2026.07.06
16:41:23 +0530were forged and fabricated. The witness denied the suggestion that he was
deposing falsely or that the accused persons had been falsely implicated.
Cross-Examination of CW-1 by Learned Counsel for Accused
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 10 of 27
Maan Singh. During further cross-examination, CW-1 reiterated that the
property had been purchased from Smt. Chander Kala for a sum of
Rs.30,000/-. He denied the suggestion that accused Maan Singh had
contributed any amount towards the purchase of the property. He also
denied the suggestion that the property was purchased jointly for the
benefit of himself, accused Vishal Kumar and accused Ramesh Kumar and
that the documents had merely been executed in the names of the
complainant and accused Vishal Kumar. The witness stated that accused
Maan Singh was his brother-in-law (Jija). He admitted that he had never
personally seen accused Maan Singh signing any document. However, he
denied the suggestion that accused Maan Singh had been falsely
implicated.
19. Testimony of CW-2 Ved Prakash Sharma CW-2 Ved Prakash
Sharma entered the witness box and deposed that he was a witness to the
original transaction whereby Smt. Chander Kala transferred the property in
favour of the complainant and accused Vishal Kumar on 05.04.1989. The
witness identified his signatures appearing on the General Power of
Attorney and Agreement Deed forming part of Ex. CW1/A (colly). He
specifically identified his signatures at the relevant points on the
documents. CW-2 testified that the documents executed by Smt. Chander
Kala in favour of the complainant and accused Vishal Kumar were
executed in his presence and that he had witnessed the execution thereof.
The testimony of CW-2 assumes significance as it independently
corroborates the case of the complainant regarding the original ownership
of the property and the transaction dated 05.04.1989.
20.
Digitally
Testimony of CW-3 Avtar Singh CW-3 Avtar Singh, LDC
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
CT Cases 52622/201
2026.07.06
16:41:29
+0530
RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 11 of 27
from the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Delhi, appeared as a
summoned witness and produced the relevant official record. The witness
deposed that he had brought the record pertaining to receipt of Rs.
30,000/- paid by Vishal Kumar and Narender Kumar to Smt. Chander
Kala. He testified that the said receipt had been duly registered in the
office of the Sub-Registrar bearing Registration No.16192, Additional
Book No.4, Volume No.2195, Page No.60 dated 05.04.1989. The said
receipt was exhibited as Ex. CW3/A. The testimony of CW-3 is an official
and independent piece of evidence which lends further corroboration to the
complainant’s version regarding the original acquisition of the property by
the complainant and accused Vishal Kumar.
21. Testimony of CW-4 Syed Faizal Huda (Forensic Expert)
CW-4 Syed Faizal Huda entered the witness box as an expert witness. He
deposed that he had been working as a forensic expert for more than seven
years and had acquired a Bachelor’s Degree in Forensic Science from
Amity University, Noida. He further stated that he had rendered opinions
in more than 900 matters before courts, government departments and
private authorities. The witness testified that in the present case he was
called upon to examine the disputed signatures and thumb impressions
appearing on the documents allegedly executed on 11.10.1989. He stated
that he compared the disputed signatures marked D1 to D5 with the
admitted and specimen signatures marked S1 to S5. Similarly, he
compared the disputed thumb impressions with specimen thumb
impressions supplied for examination. CW-4 categorically deposed that
upon scientific examination and comparison, he formed a definite opinion
that the disputed signatures appearing on the questioned documents were
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA PRERNA
Date:
RAI
RAI 2026.07.06
16:41:34
+0530
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 12 of 27
forged and had not been written by the persons to whom they were
attributed. He further deposed that the disputed thumb impressions did not
tally with the specimen thumb impressions of the complainant and accused
Vishal Kumar. The witness proved on record his detailed signature
verification reports running into thirty-two pages along with enlarged
photographs and annexures as Ex. CW4/A and Ex. CW4/B (OSR). He
further proved the thumb impression verification reports running into
twenty-five pages along with annexures as Ex. CW4/C and Ex. CW4/D
(OSR). CW-4 identified his signatures and official seal appearing on all the
reports and affirmed the correctness of the conclusions reached by him.
No cross-examination was conducted on behalf of accused
Vishal Kumar despite opportunity being granted.
On behalf of accused Maan Singh, the witness was cross-
examined only to a limited extent. He stated that the nature of the
documents used for comparison was specifically mentioned in his reports.
He denied the suggestion that his reports were false or fabricated.
CLOSURE OF COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
22. Upon examination of CW-1 to CW-4 and after exhibiting all
relevant documents relied upon by the complainant, no further witness was
examined. Consequently, complainant’s evidence was closed.
23. After completion of Complainant evidence, matter was listed
for recording of statement of accused persons.
RAI
Digitally signed
PRERNA Date:
by PRERNA RAI
2026.07.06
16:41:41 +0530
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313
Cr.P.C.
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 13 of 27
24. After completion of complainant’s evidence, all incriminating
circumstances appearing against the accused persons in evidence were put
to them separately under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281
Cr.P.C. so as to afford them an opportunity to explain the circumstances
appearing against them. Wherein accused Maan Singh was confronted
with the allegations that he, along with co-accused Vishal Kumar and
deceased accused Ramesh Kumar, had participated in the preparation of
forged documents dated 11.10.1989 relating to property bearing Municipal
No. 312-A, New Lahore Colony, Delhi. He was also confronted with the
allegation that the said documents contained forged signatures and thumb
impressions of the complainant and were subsequently used as genuine
before the Civil Court. Accused Maan Singh denied all allegations and
stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He claimed
that he had no concern whatsoever with the preparation or execution of the
alleged documents. He further stated that the signatures appearing on the
disputed documents were not his signatures and that he had nothing to do
with the transaction in question. The accused further stated that after the
death of his wife on 29.12.2010, he had virtually no contact with the
complainant. According to him, he had been unnecessarily dragged into the
litigation because of his relationship with the parties. He denied having any
knowledge regarding the alleged forged documents and claimed complete
innocence.
Accused Vishal Kumar was also confronted with all
incriminating evidence appearing against him, including the testimony of
CW-1, CW-2, CW-3 and CW-4, the original title documents Ex. CW1/A,
the disputed documents Ex. CW1/B and the forensic reports Ex. CW4/A to
Ex. CW4/D. In response thereto, accused Vishal Kumar denied all
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.07.06
16:41:47
+0530CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 14 of 27
allegations and claimed that the present complaint was false and
motivated. He stated that he had never executed any forged document and
that he had never signed the alleged sale documents in question. The
accused further stated that the signatures appearing on the disputed
documents were not his signatures and were entirely different in style and
formation. He claimed that he had been falsely implicated by the
complainant due to the ongoing property dispute between the parties.
Accused Vishal Kumar admitted that he and the complainant were co-
owners of the property in question. However, he denied any role in the
preparation, execution or use of the alleged forged documents. However,
both the accused persons opted to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
25. After recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused persons were granted an opportunity to lead defence evidence. In
support of their defence, the accused examined one witness namely DW-1
Dharam Singh.
26. Testimony of DW-1 Dharam Singh DW-1 Dharam Singh
entered the witness box and deposed on oath that the complainant Rajesh
Kumar and accused Vishal Kumar were his nephews (Bhanjas). He stated
that both of them had jointly purchased property bearing No. 312, Shastri
Nagar, Delhi. The witness further stated that subsequently he came to
know that accused Ramesh Kumar had prepared forged documents relating
PRERNA
to the aforesaid property. The witness, however, expressly stated that he
RAI
by PRERNA RAI
did not want to say anything more regarding the matter.
Digitally signed
Date: 2026.07.06
16:41:55 +0530
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 15 of 27
At this stage, the Court recorded an observation that the
witness was not a witness to the incident in question and that his testimony
was based solely on information allegedly received from others. The
witness admittedly had no personal knowledge regarding the execution of
the disputed documents, the circumstances in which they were prepared or
the persons involved therein.
Opportunity for cross-examination was granted to the
complainant. However, no substantial cross-examination was conducted.
27. Thereafter, no other witness was examined by the defence and
defence evidence was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
28. Final arguments were heard at length on behalf of both sides.
The entire record was carefully perused.
29. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the
complainant had successfully established his case beyond reasonable
doubt through reliable oral, documentary and expert evidence. It was
submitted that the ownership of the property by the complainant and
accused Vishal Kumar stood conclusively proved through Ex. CW1/A and
Ex. CW3/A as well as the testimonies of CW-2 and CW-3. It was further
argued that the impugned documents dated 11.10.1989 surfaced only
during the pendency of the partition suit and were relied upon by accused
persons to defeat the lawful rights of the complainant. Learned counsel
Digitally
RAI
signed by
PRERNA PRERNA
Date:
2026.07.06
submitted that the testimony of CW-4, the forensic expert, conclusively
RAI16:42:02
+0530established that the signatures and thumb impressions appearing on the
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 16 of 27
impugned documents were forged. It was argued that the expert evidence
remained substantially unrebutted and there was no contrary expert
opinion on record. It was further contended that accused Vishal Kumar
was the direct beneficiary of the forged documents and that the documents
were used during judicial proceedings with the object of depriving the
complainant of his share in the property. It was argued that all
circumstances taken together clearly established the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 467 IPC and 471 IPC. Accordingly, it
was prayed that the accused persons be convicted.
30. Per contra, learned counsel for accused Vishal Kumar argued
that the dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature and
arose out of a family property dispute. It was contended that the
complainant had instituted the present proceedings merely as a
counterblast to the civil litigation pending between the parties. Learned
counsel argued that there was no direct evidence showing that accused
Vishal Kumar had personally forged any document. It was submitted that
mere existence of disputed documents could not automatically lead to a
conclusion that accused Vishal Kumar had fabricated the same. It was
further argued that the complainant had failed to establish the necessary
ingredients of forgery beyond reasonable doubt, hence, accused Vishal
Kumar be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.
31. Learned counsel for accused Maan Singh argued that there was
absolutely no evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offences. It
was submitted that the complainant himself admitted during cross-
Digitally
signed by
examination that he had never seen accused Maan Singh signing any
PRERNA PRERNA
Date:
RAI
document and was unable to identify his signatures. It was further argued
RAI 2026.07.06
16:42:09
+0530CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 17 of 27
that no handwriting expert had examined the alleged signatures of accused
Maan Singh and no witness had deposed that accused Maan Singh had
participated in preparation of the disputed documents. Learned counsel
submitted that mere presence of a signature as an attesting witness,
without proof of knowledge or participation, could not form the basis of
criminal conviction. Accordingly, it was prayed by ld. Defence counsel
that accused Maan Singh be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR DECISION
32. The accused is charged for the offences under section
467/471/34 IPC. For offences under 467/471/34 IPC, the prosecution has
to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients i.e:
33. Section 467 IPC prescribes punishment for Forgery of valuable
security, will, etc. Section 467 IPC enumerates that:
“467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. Whoever
forges a document which purports to be a valuable
security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or
which purports to give authority to any person to make or
transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal,
interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any
money, movable property, or valuable security, or any
document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt
acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance
or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment
for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
PRERNA
RAI
liable to fine.”
Digitally signed
by PRERNA RAI
Date: 2026.07.06
16:42:14 +0530
34. Forgery is defined under Section 463 of Indian Penal Code. The
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 18 of 27
section reads as:
“Whosoever makes any fake document or incorrect
electronic record or part of a document with an intention
to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person,
or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to
share with property, or to enter into any express or
implied contract, or with purpose to commit fraud or that
fraud may be accomplished, commits forgery.”
35. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that a. the
accused should have made a false document. b. And secondly, the false
document must be made with an intention to cause harm or injury to the
public or to any class of society or to any community.
36. ‘False document’ is dealt under section 464 IPC. The definition
of “false document” is a part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be
read together. An analysis of section 464 of Indian Penal Code shows that
it divides false documents into three categories: 1) The first is where a
person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or
executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person,
by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2)
The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation
or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful
authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other
person. 3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes
any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person
could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c)
deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the
Digitally signed
PRERNA Date:
by PRERNA RAI
RAI
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
2026.07.06
16:42:19 +0530Page 19 of 27
nature of the alteration.
37. The key to unfold the present dispute lies in understanding
Explanation 2 as given in Section 464 IPC. As Collin J., puts it precisely in
Dickins v. Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and
making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that “to make”, in itself
involves conscious act on the part of the maker. Therefore, an offence of
forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it.
38. The accused Persons have also charged with Section Section
471 IPC.
Sec. 471 IPC states that :-
“Using as genuine a forged document :- Whoever
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document
which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged
document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he
had forged such document.”
39. The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and
471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false
document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not
relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the
accused no. 2, in executing and registering the sale deed purporting to sell
a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said
to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other
accused.
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.07.06
16:42:24
+0530
40. It is observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Md. Ibrahim
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 20 of 27
and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751 that-
“A person is said to have made a `false document’, if (i) he made or
executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by
someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he
obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in
control of his senses.”
41. In Mir Nagvi Askari vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009)
15 SCC 643, Hon’ble Supreme Court, after analysing the facts of that
case, came to observe as follows:
“A person is said to make a false document or record
if he satisfies one of the three conditions as noticed
hereinbefore and provided for under the said section.
The first condition being that the document has been
falsified with the intention of causing it to be believed
that such document has been made by a person, by
whom the person falsifying the document knows that it
was not made. Clearly the documents in question in
the present case, even if it be assumed to have been
made dishonestly or fraudulently, had not been made
with the intention of causing it to be believed that they
were made by or under the authority of some one else.
The second criteria of the section deals with a case
where a person without lawful authority alters a
document after it has been made. There has been no
allegation of alteration of the voucher in question
after they have been made. Therefore in our opinion
the second criteria of the said section is also not
applicable to the present case.
The third and final condition of Section 464 deals
with a document, signed by a person who due to his
mental capacity does not know the contents of the
documents which were made i.e because of
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
intoxication or unsoundness of mind etc. Such is also
PRERNA RAI
RAI Date:
2026.07.06
16:42:29
not the case before us. Indisputably therefore the
+0530CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 21 of 27
accused before us could not have been convicted with
the making of a false document.”
42. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e.,
referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are preferred,
it can rightly be observed that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a
person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of judgment,
making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As
Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting an
offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document is made
and the accused persons is the maker of the same, otherwise the accused
person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
43. In the present case, CW1 Complainant Rajesh Kumar @
Narender Kumar in his examination had stated that in a civil suit pending
against accused no 2 Vishal before the Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari, accused no 1
Ramesh (since dead) who was appointed as SPA by accused no.2 Vishal
had filed a written statement indicating that accused Vishal had sold the
property accused Ramesh. He further stated that the accused Ramesh had
also filed certain documents alongwith Written Statement i.e. agreement to
sale, GPA, Payment receipt indicating the CW1 complainant and Accused
Vishal has executed the same in favour of accused Ramesh. The accused
further state that after obtaining the certified copy of the document, the
complainant came to know that accused no.1 Ramesh and accused no 2
Vishal has forged the document and Accused no 3 Maan Singh has signed
the on the forged documents knowing fully that the same was forged
documents.
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA RAI
PRERNA Date:
RAI 2026.07.06
16:42:35
+0530
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 22 of 27
44. It is to be noted that the accused no1 Ramesh kumar who had
filed the said documents before the Ld. ADJ Court, Central, Tis Hazari,
expired during the pendency of this case and proceedings qua accused
Ramesh Kumar was abated vide order dated15.04.2024.
45. CW-4, Sh Syed Faisal Khan, a handwriting expert who has
examined the hand-writing and signatures of the document deposed that he
had examined the alleged signature of the Complainant and Accused no2.
Vishal marked as D1 to D5 in his report Ex CW4/A (OSR) and EX
CW4/B (OSR) and compared it with their specimen signatures marked as
S1 to S5 in EX CW4/A and EX CW4/B. CW-4 has given a definite
opinion that the Signature and thumb impression of Complainant as well as
the accused no. 2 are forged and is not written or signed by their actual
writers. Further, In his report, as stated by him in his testimony that
disputed thumb impression of the Complainant marked in his reports as D1
to D3 does not tally with specimen signature of the Complainant Sh.
Narender Pal marked as SR 1 and D2 does not tally with the specimen
Signature of Accused No. 2 Vishal marked as SR1.
46. It is pertinent to note that, for determining whether a document
has been fabricated or forged, the FSL report assumes considerable
importance. Although expert evidence is corroborative in nature and is not
binding upon the Court, the same cannot ordinarily be discarded in the
absence of direct evidence or strong reasons to the contrary. Since courts
are not experts in the field of forensic science, scientific opinion is
generally given due weight. On Analysing the testimony of handwriting
RAI
Digitally signed
PRERNA Date:
by PRERNA RAI
2026.07.06
16:42:40 +0530
expert, it has made clear that signature of the accused no 2 Vishal on theCT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 23 of 27
alleged forged document CW1/B (Colly) does not match with the
specimen signature of accused Vishal. Therefore, an inference can be
drawn that the accused no2 Vishal has not created the said alleged forged
document i.e. ExCW1/B (colly). Also, as per the complainant’s case,
accused no 3 Maan Singh has only signed the alleged forged document as
a witness and no role of creating the said document is attributed to him by
the Complainant. Moreover, in the cross Examination, the Complainant
has admitted that he cannot tell if the GPA in question bears the signature
of accused Maan Singh or whether the signature is forged and fabricated.
He further admits that he has never seen accused Maan Singh Signing.
Therefore, it has also not been proved that the accused no 3 has created
the forged document. Hence, section 467 IPC is not made out against the
accused Persons namely Vishal and Maan Singh.
47. As far as offence under section 471 IPC i.e. Using as genuine a
forged document or electronic record ,is concerned, it has also alleged by
the complainant that accused no.2 Vishal and Accused no 3 Maan Singh in
furtherance of common intention had fraudulently used the document EX
CW1/ B (Colly) as genuine despite knowing or having reason to believe
the same to be forged document.
48. In Parvinder Kaur vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
[AIR 2010 SC 840], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed the following
with respect to the requisite criminal intention under Section 471 of IPC:
“Section 471 of IPC stipulates that the forged document ought to be used
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA PRERNA RAI“dishonestly” or “fraudulently” for the purpose of establishing an offence
Date:
RAI 2026.07.06
16:42:45
+0530
under Section 471 of IPC. The words “dishonestly” and “fraudulently”
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 24 of 27
have been defined respectively in Sections 24 and 25 of the IPC.
‘Dishonestly’ has been defined to mean that, whoever does anything with
the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to
another, is said to do that thing ‘dishonestly’. The word ‘fraudulently’ has
been defined to mean that a person is said to do a thing ‘fraudulently’ if he
does that thing with the intent to defraud, but not otherwise. The
expression ‘wrongful gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’ are defined in Section 23 of
IPC; ‘wrongful gain’ is gain by unlawful means of property to which the
person gaining is not legally entitled to; wrongful loss is loss by unlawful
means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled to; and a
person is said to gain wrongfully, when such person retains wrongfully, as
well as when the other person is wrongfully deprived of property. The
word ‘injury’ is defined in Section 44 as any harm illegally caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or property. Section 471 IPC is not
attracted if there is no dishonest intention on the part of the accused or if
the accused has not acted fraudulently.”
49. It is well settled proposition that intention cannot be proved as
material evidence. It can be inferred from the attending circumstances
particular to the available facts and circumstances of each case. The key
ingredient of offence under Section 471 of IPC is using a forged document
as genuine knowing that the same is forged. Therefore, knowledge that the
document being used is forged, is imperative to bring home the verdict of
guilty against the accused person.
Digitally
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
50. CW1 in his testimony has stated that Accused no. 2 Vishal has
RAI Date:
2026.07.06
16:42:49
+0530appointed accused no.1 Ramesh as SPA in a civil suit pending between the
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 25 of 27
parties. The complainant has filed a certified copy of judgment titled
Rajesh Kumar @ Narender Kumar v. Vishal Kumar dated 05.03.2013 of
Ld ADJ -08, Central, Delhi. In para no 2 of the said judgment, it is
mentioned that Defendant no1 (Vishal) filed a written statement through
his attorney Sh Ramesh Kumar who also claimed himself to be the
subsequent purchaser. Later in the said paragraph Ramesh Kumar S/o
Bhullan Singh was also mentioned as defendant no.2. hence, the
complainant has proved that Accused no 1 Ramesh Kumar was the SPA of
Accused Vishal in Civil Suit no. 272/2009, central, Delhi. However, for the
application of Sec. 34 of IPC there must be an active participation on part
of the accused no. 2 Vishal in using of forged documents. Mere filing of
document by SPA without active participation or agreement on part of
accused no. 2 Vishal, does not make him liable under Section 471/34 of
IPC. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prove that at the
time when accused no. 1 Ramesh Kumar has filed documents in the court
of Ld. ADJ-08, Central, Delhi the accused no. 2 Vishal had the knowledge
or reason to believe that a forged document was used as a genuine in Civil
case. It is noted that as per the testimony of CW4 Sh. Syed Faisal Khan a
handwriting expert, the alleged forged document does not contain the
signature of accused Vishal. Thus, in the absence of required proof of
knowledge on part of accused no. 2 Vishal, the offence punishable u/Sec.
471/34 IPC is not proved against him by the complainant beyond
reasonable doubt.
51. With regard to Accused no. 3 Maan Singh, he was neither a
Digitally
creator of forged document nor was a party in the civil suit in which the
signed by
PRERNA
PRERNA RAI
said document was filed. Hence, the offence under section 471 IPC is not
RAI Date:
2026.07.06
16:42:54
+0530CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 26 of 27
made out against him.
52. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to
prove any charges against the accused persons namely Vishal, S/o Mr.
Bhullan Singh and Maan Singh, s/o Sh. Khajan Singh beyond reasonable
doubt.
FINAL ORDER:-
53. In view of the above discussions, the accused Maan Singh s/o
Khajan Singh and Vishal S/o Mr. Bhullan Singh are hereby
acquitted for offences punishable under section 467/471/34 of IPC.
54. A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the official website of the
District Court.
Digitally signed
PRERNA by PRERNA RAI
RAI Date: 2026.07.06
16:43:01 +0530
Announced in open Court (Prerna Rai)
on 06.07.2026 JMFC-02 (East)/KKD Courts/Delhi
NOTE: This judgment contains 27 pages and each page has been
signed by me.
CT Cases 52622/201 RAJESH KUMAR @ NARENDER PRASAD Vs. RAMESH KUMAR ETC PS Geeta Colony
Page 27 of 27
