Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Manoj Kumar Saini on 21 May, 2026
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. MANOJ KUMAR SAINI AND OTHERS
CNR No. DLCT12-001128-2019
RC No. 07(A)/2007
21.05.2026
(At 04:00 PM)
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide whether accused persons in
the present case deserve to be discharged or they are liable for
the charges to be framed against them.
Case of the Prosecution
2. In pursuance to the Orders dated 02.08.2005 and
13.06.2005 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, passed in Civil
Writ Petition no. 10066/2004, a preliminary enquiry
PE-3(S)/2006/SCR-III/CBI/DLI dated 03.03.2006 was registered
in CBI. Enquiry revealed that some of the defunct/wound up Co-
operative Group Housing Societies (hereinafter referred to as
“CGHS”) registered during 1970-80 or thereafter were revived
by Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as “RCS”), on the basis of false/forged documents and on the
recommendation of RCS, land was allotted to these societies by
Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “DDA”).
The preliminary enquiry in the present matter was registered to
ascertain the genuineness of the office bearers of Shree New
Anamika CGHS Limited (Regn. No. 1162) (hereinafter referred
to as “the Society”).
CR Cases/451/2019 CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 1 of 46 T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.05.23 14:59:59 +0530
3. As per the chargesheet, the Society was registered on
31.12.1983 vide registration no. 1162. At the time of the
registration, Sh. Manoj Kumar Saini (hereinafter referred to as
“A1”) was its Honorary Secretary and initial strength of the
Society was 90. During the course of enquiry, notices were sent
to almost 152 resigned members of the said Society through
speed post. Most of the notices were received back undelivered
due to change of addresses. Out of the notices which were
served, most of the members who received notices admitted
having resigned from the primary membership of the said Society
but Mrs. Jyoti Sardana (Membership No. 29) and Mr. R.K.
Dhingra (Membership no. 39) denied their signatures on the
resignation letter and stated that their signatures appear to have
been forged by someone.
4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that
after approval of the freezed list of 60 members, the list was sent
to DDA by the RCS for allotment of land. The strength of
members of the Society was subsequently reduced to 54 from 60
with the approval of DDA and RCS.
5. During the course of the investigation, the Secretary of the T
PRIYADARSHINI
CGHS had made a request to DDA for allotment of land which
was processed by the Dealing Assistant on 24.09.1996 who Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
mentioned in his note that the freeze list of the Society was not 15:00:03 +0530
approved because the Society did not respond to the memos
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 2 of 46
issued by the office of RCS.
6. During investigation, Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mr. R.K.
Dhingra, Mr. Rajesh Dua, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. B.B. Seth and
Ms. Jyoti Sardana had stated that they had never resigned from
its membership. It was found out from the records of the Society
that resignation of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora and Mr. R.K.
Dhingra was accepted by the Management Committee on
20.06.1997, the resignation of Mr. Rajesh Dua and Mr. Ashok
Kumar was accepted by the Management Committee on
16.07.1997 and the resignation of Mr. B.B. Seth and Ms. Jyoti
Sardana was accepted by the Management Committee on
18.06.1998. It is averred that on 20.06.1997 and 16.07.1997, A1
and accused Atul Saxena (hereinafter referred to as “A2”) were
Secretaries and Member of the Management Committee of the
Society respectively. On 18.06.1998, accused Rajnish Jain
(hereinafter referred to as “A3”) was Secretary of the
Management Committee of the Society.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
7. Investigation revealed that A1 was Secretary of the Society
2026.05.23
15:00:06 +0530
from 1983 to 1997. The Proceeding Register of the Society
shows that a meeting was held on 16.07.1997 at his residence
which was attended by him as Secretary, Pawan Kumar
(Treasurer), A2 (Member) and Mrs. Kamaljeet Chhabra
(Member) and they had put their signatures in the proceeding
register. In this meeting, resignation of 19 members and
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 3 of 46
enrolment of 33 new members was approved. The nineteen
resigned members including Rajesh Dua and Ashok Kumar who
had during investigation denied having resigned from the
Society. It is stated that the opinion of the Government Examiner
of Questioned Documents (hereinafter referred to as ” GEQD”)
has confirmed that the signatures on the Proceeding Register
belong to A1 and A2 while no opinion was furnished with respect
to signatures of Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mrs. Kamaljeet Chhabra.
Further, the resignation of Rajesh Dua along with some other
members was forwarded by A1 to RCS vide letter dated
29.08.1997. Signatures on this letter has been confirmed by
GEQD to be that of accused A1. It is averred that from the said
opinions, it is clear that A1 and A2 have fraudulently accepted
the resignations of Rajesh Dua although he had actually not
resigned.
8. Investigation also revealed that A2 was the member of the
Management Committee from 1983 to 1997. As per the record
from the Proceeding Register, he attended the meeting of
Management Committee on 16.07.1997 and 20.06.1997 in which T
PRIYADARSHINI
resignation of members who had denied having resigned has Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
been accepted. 15:00:11 +0530
9. The resignation of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora had been
approved in the Management Committee meeting conducted on
20.06.1997. However, no record of this meeting is available. The
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 4 of 46
resignation of Naresh Kumar was forwarded to the office of RCS
by A1 vide letter dated 05.09.1997. The signatures on this letter
have been confirmed by GEQD to be that of A1.
10. Investigation further revealed that A3 was the Secretary of
the Society from 1998 to 2004. A3 along with R.K. Jain, N.K.
Jain and Vinod Jain had attended Management Committee
Meeting dated 18.06.1998 in which resignation of members
including Mr. BB Seth and Mrs. Jyoti Sardana were accepted.
However, positive GEQD opinion has been received only with
regard of signatures of A3.
11. The GEQD opinion has confirmed that the resignation
letters of Ms. Jyoti Sardana, Mr. Naresh Kumar and Mr. Rajesh
Dua do not bear their signatures and as such the signatures on the
resignation letters have been forged. Mr. R.K. Dhingra, Mr. B.B.
Seth and Mr. Ashok Kumar stated that their signatures are forged
on the resignation letters.
12. It is argued by the prosecution that the investigation has
thus established that A1, A2 and A3 entered into a criminal
conspiracy to forge the resignation letters of some of the
T
PRIYADARSHINI
members by fraudulent means so as to enrol new members and
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:00:15 +0530
submitted the same to RCS in order to cheat the RCS office. It is
also argued that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy,
they got/arranged forged resignation letters of members Ms. Jyoti
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 5 of 46
Sardana, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Dua, Mr. R.K. Dhingra,
Mr. B.B. Seth and Mr. Ashok Kumar and submitted the same to
the RCS causing their acceptance by the RCS believing them to
be genuine and thereby they committed offences punishable
under Sections 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC“) r/w Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and
substantive offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC.
13. Ld. PP for the CBI has submitted that considering the facts
and the role of the accused persons, it is clear that offences as
mentioned in the chargesheet were committed by them for which
they are liable to be charged with.
Arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for A1.
14. The arguments on the point of charge on behalf of accused
Manoj Kumar Saini are as follows:
a) Firstly, it is argued that the only allegation against
A1 is that he was an office bearer at the time of resignation
of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mr. R.K. Dhingra, Mr. Rajesh
Dua and Mr. Ashok Kumar and that the prosecution has
not been able to establish as to how the said accused
gained illegally by virtue of the purported acceptance /
creation of forged resignation letters. In this regard, it is T
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
also submitted that A1 resigned from the Society on
2026.05.23
15:00:18 +0530CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 6 of 46
20.09.1997 and the land was allotted to the new
management on 03.06.1999. It is stated that as A1 was not
a member at the time of allotment of land, there can be no
averment of illegal gain qua him.
b) Secondly, it is argued that as per the FIR, the order
of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was to investigate the
nexus between RCS officials, private persons and the
builder lobby. It is averred that no investigation qua the
role of RCS officials and the builder lobby has been
conducted by the IO. It is also argued that the investigation
is half-baked as without complicity of RCS, any
conspiracy with respect to revival of the Society and illegal
resignation / enrolment of members cannot survive. It is
also argued that the IO ought to have investigated as to
who gained from enrolling new members to the Society
and who were the builders or private persons who
orchestrated the revival of the Society. In the absence of
said investigation, it is averred that no criminal conspiracy
has been prima facie shown.
c) Thirdly, it is argued that as the IO has not sent the
purportedly forged signatures of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora,
Mr. R.K. Dhingra, Mr. Rajesh Dua and Mr. Ashok Kumar
to GEQD for comparison with the signatures of A1, there
is no material on record to infer that A1 created the alleged
forged resignation letters and therefore, no liability qua the
purportedly forged resignation letters can be fastened on Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
T
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.05.23
15:00:22 +0530CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 7 of 46
A1.
d) Fourthly, it is argued that all the six persons (whose
resignation letters are purportedly forged) are mentioned in
the freeze list in 1997 (when A1 was an office bearer). It is
argued that these 6 members were subsequently removed
from the list of members and members were reduced from
60 to 54 by the new management. It is stated that
resignation letters, even if admitted to be forged, were not
sent to RCS till 30.03.1998 and on that date, A1 ceased to
be a member. It is alleged that at the time of exclusion of
these 6 members and reduction of number of members
from 60 to 54, A1 was not part of the management, hence,
he has been wrongly indicted in the present matter. In this
regard, it is argued that no prejudice has been caused to
Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mr. R.K. Dhingra, Mr. Rajesh
Dua and Mr. Ashok Kumar by A1 as their names have been
mentioned in the freeze list sent by A1 to RCS.
e) Fifthly, it is argued that even RCS has verified the
resignation letters and has concluded that the documents
are genuine. It is further stated that DDA has relied upon
the verification done by RCS. In view of said verification,
it is stated that RCS could not have been deceived by the
accused persons.
f) Sixthly, it is argued that even A1 is a victim in the T
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
present matter as although A1 resigned in 1997, he has
15:00:25 +0530
been shown as a member on 16.07.1998 in the list sent to
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 8 of 46
RCS by A3.
g) Seventhly, it is argued that the IO has not recorded
the statements of Pawan Kumar and Kamalpreet who,
according to the proceeding register, attended the meeting
which was held on 16.07.1997. It is averred that examining
the said members was crucial in order to understand
whether the purported meeting dated 16.07.1997 was held.
h) Eighthly, it is further argued that none of the victims
(namely, Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mr. R.K. Dhingra, Mr.
Rajesh Dua, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. B.B. Seth and Ms.
Jyoti Sardana) have filed any complaint with respect to the
purportedly forged resignation letters. It is averred that as
none of the said persons have filed a complaint and even
the FIR does not mention them as victims, there can be no
case against A1 under Section 420 IPC.
i) Ninthly, it is stated that all the records of the society
have been seized by the IO without any seizure memo and
therefore, tampering of said records cannot be ruled out.
j) Tenthly, it is argued that as proceeding of the
minutes of meeting dated 20.06.1997 is not available, no
information is available with respect to the identity of the
persons / office bearers who were responsible for accepting
the impugned resignation letters of Mr. Naresh Kumar
Arora and Mr. R.K. Dhingra.
k) Eleventhly, it is argued that in arguendo, even if the
signatures on the proceedings register are admitted by A1,
T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
CR Cases/451/2019 15:00:29 +0530
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 9 of 46
there is no material on record to show or infer that A1
could have known that the resignation letters were forged.
It is also argued that the said forged letters could not have
been used by A1 as A1 had already resigned the Society.
l) Twelfthly, it is argued that even if the resignation
letters are admitted to be forged, they were forged by the
new management and no liability can be fastened on A1.
m) Lastly, it is stated that the entire D7 is concocted and
fabricated as all the documents (including the proceedings
relating to election of the governing body) only bear the
signatures of A1. Moreover, the said documents were not
sent to GEQD. Also, no investigation was done with
respect to other members. It is stated that the said register
was prepared by a gang of perpetrators who have remained
untraced. It is also stated that RCS ought to have liquidated
the Society and it ought to have been examined as to who
gained by preventing the Society from liquidation.
Arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for A2.
15. The arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for A2 are as
follows:
a) Firstly, that the GEQD Report is silent with respect
to the role of A2 and therefore, Section 467 and 471 of IPC
are not applicable qua A2. Further, as none of the
Digitally signedpurportedly forged resignation letters have been sent by A2
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:00:34 +0530CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 10 of 46
to the RCS, Section 471 of IPC is not applicable qua A2.
b) Secondly, that even if signature on the proceedings
register dated 16.07.1997 is admitted by A2, he could not
have had any knowledge that the said resignation letters
were forged, especially in light of the fact that many
resignation letters were considered and taken on record on
the said date.
c) Thirdly, it is argued that there can be no case of
dishonest inducement or cheating against the accused
persons as no complaint / legal proceedings have been
filed / initiated by the six persons whose resignation letters
have been purportedly forged.
d) Fourthly, that as A2 has resigned on 10.06.1998
which was prior to allocation of land by DDA, no unlawful
gain has accrued to A2 and therefore, no case of cheating is
made out against him.
e) Finally, it is argued that the IO has not traced the
actual accused persons as he ought to have investigated as
to who gained from freezing the members list to 54 and
who were the builders or private persons who orchestrated
the whole revival of the society.
Arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for A3.
16. The following are the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel
for A3:
a) Firstly, it is averred that the allegation against A3 is
CR Cases/451/2019 T
PRIYADARSHINI
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 11 of 46
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:00:39 +0530
that Mr. B.B. Seth and Ms. Jyoti Sardana denied their
signatures on respective resignation letters and also denied
refund of the membership fee of Rs.100/- and that the said
resignation letters were accepted on 18.06.1998 when A3
was the Secretary of the Society. It is argued that in the
meeting dated 18.06.1998, apart from A3, there were other
three members who were present in the meeting. It is
stated that none of the said members have been arraigned
as accused or cited as a witness.
b) Secondly, with respect to allegations of forgery, the
Ld. Counsel for A3 has argued that the admitted signatures
of A3 were not compared with the questioned signatures of
Jyoti Sardana or B.B. Seth. Therefore, there is no material
on record to state that A3 was the maker of the forged
document and consequently, no charge for forgery is made
out against A3.
c) Thirdly, it is further submitted that whilst admitted
signatures of A3 were sent to GEQD, for reasons best
known to the Investigating Agency, the admitted signatures
of the other members who attended the meeting on the day
when the resignation letters of B.B. Seth and Jyoti Sardana
were accepted, were not sent to GEQD. It is further stated
that one of the members on the said date was the President
of the Society and his signatures ought to have been sent
for comparison. It is also averred that no conclusive
opinion of GEQD has been received with respect to the
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.05.23
15:00:43 +0530CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 12 of 46
signatures of Mr. B.B. Seth in the resignation letter.
d) Lastly, it is also submitted that apart from B.B. Seth
and Jyoti Sardana, ten other members also resigned on the
said date and A3 cannot be insinuated to have had
knowledge that the resignation letters were forged.
Therefore, it is averred that none of the Sections mentioned
in the chargesheet are made out against A3.
17. Ld. Counsel for A2 and A3 have relied upon the decision
of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in A.P. Narang vs. CBI (2011
SCC OnLine Del 212) wherein the following was observed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a revision against an order
directing framing of charge against office bearers of CGHS with
respect to allegation of forgery of resignation letter:
“4. Presuming that letter of Mr. V.K.Talwar was forged
that would show that Mr. V.K.Talwar had not resigned and
had continued to be a member. He had not paid a single
paisa towards cost of land or towards construction. Thus,
the issue of deceiving him fraudulently or dishonestly, so
that he delivers any property to any person or issue of
inducement by an act or omission of petitioners does not
arise. If he had not resigned he was liable for expulsion
because of non-payment of dues as per rules and bye-laws
of the society. He did not hold any vested right in the
society by being member despite not making payment
towards construction of the flats. Thus, no presumptionCR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 13 of 46
can be drawn that he was holder of any property. A
membership of a society is not a property. Only that
membership of the Group Housing Cooperative Society
matures into property where the member contributes
towards construction of the flats and towards purchase of
land for flats. If he does not contribute either towards
purchase of land or towards construction, he does not hold
any property right in the Cooperative Group Housing
Society and Group Housing Society is not bound to allot
him any flat. Under these circumstances, I consider that no
Toffence under Section 415 or 420 IPC was made out
PRIYADARSHINIagainst the petitioners. Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:00:48 +0530
5. As far as offence under Section 471 IPC is concerned, it
only seems that this prosecution was motivated. Mr.
V.K.Talwar’s resignation letter was forwarded to Registrar
of Cooperative Society in 1998. From 1998 till 2006 when
CBI filed its report Mr. V.K.Talwar himself had not
complained about his resignation being forged. He was
very well aware that he had not paid a single paisa towards
construction of flats of the society. He knew that flats had
come up and he was not being considered as member of
the society. If he was aggrieved that his resignation was
forged one, he would have complained to Registrar of
Cooperative Society about this. It only seems that while
CBI was investigating about the genuineness of theCR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 14 of 46
society, Mr. V.K.Talwar found it as an opportunity to claim
a flat on the ground of alleged forgery of his resignation
letter and made this complaint that his resignation letter
was forged. Still it is not his case that at any point of time
he had offered to the society the amount as demanded by
the society. Under these circumstances, I consider that his
stand of a forged resignation letter after such a long period
was only a change of colours and nothing more.”
18. Ld. Counsel for A3 has also relied upon the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of
Bihar (2009 8 SCC 751 and Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj
and another (2018 7 SCC 581). In Sheila Sebastian case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:
“25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal
statute i.e., referring to rule of interpretation wherein
natural inferences are preferred, we observe that a charge
of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the
maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, 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 person is
the maker of the same, otherwise the accused person is not
liable for the offence of forgery.
26. The definition of “false document” is a part of the
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 15 of 46
definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together.
‘Forgery’ and ‘Fraud’ are essentially matters of evidence
which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by
inferences drawn from proved facts. In the case in hand,
there is no finding recorded by the trial Court that the
respondents have made any false document or part of the
document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise
of that ‘false document’. Hence, neither respondent no.1
nor respondent no.2 can be held as makers of the forged
documents. It is the imposter who can be said to have
made the false document by committing forgery. In such
an event the trial court as well as appellate court
misguided themselves by convicting the accused.
Therefore, the High Court has rightly acquitted the
accused based on the settled legal position and we find no
reason to interfere with the same.”
19. On the basis of the abovesaid grounds, it is argued by the
Ld. Counsels for accused persons that the material placed on
record do not warrant framing of charge against the accused
persons and have prayed that the accused persons be discharged.
Law Relating to Order on Charge Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.05.23 15:00:55 +0530
20. It is well settled law that at the stage of framing of charge,
only prima facie material is to be seen. Law regarding
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 16 of 46
consideration at the stage of framing charges is well settled now.
The court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against accused has been made out. When the material placed
before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained the court will be justified
in framing charge. If on the basis of material available on record
a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the
offence is a provable consequence, a case of framing of charge
exists. To put it differently, if the courts were to think that the
accused might have committed the offence it can frame a charge,
though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the
accused has committed the offence.
21. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Sanal and another
(1979 3 SCC 4), it was held that:
“Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned
above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
framing of charges under Section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not beenCR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors Digitally signed
by T
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 17 of 46 T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:00:59 +0530
properly explained the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would
naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is
difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and
large, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him while
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion
against the accused, he will be fully within his right to
discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a
senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post
Office or a mouthpiece of the Prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect
of the evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This however, does not mean that the Judge should
make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
22. At the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the
materials on record cannot be gone into, the material brought on
record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.
The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.05.23
15:01:03 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 18 of 46
nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the
accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial
to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether
the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of
the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to
be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt
or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this
stage of deciding the matter under Section 239 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).
At this stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient
ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure
to end in his conviction. But at the initial stage if there is a strong
suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is
not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
23. While deciding the question of framing of charge in a
criminal case, the court is not to apply exactly the standard and
test which it finally applies for determining the guilt or
otherwise. This being the initial stage of the trial, the court is not
supposed to decide whether the materials collected by the
investigating agency provides sufficient ground for conviction of
the accused or whether the trial is sure to culminate into his
Digitally signed
conviction. What is required to be seen is whether there is strong
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:06 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 19 of 46
suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.
24. Reliance placed on Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar
(1979 3 SCC 4); State of Maharashtra and others vs. Somnath
Thapa and others (JT 1996 4 SC 615); State of Bihar vs. Ramesh
Singh AIR (1977 SC 2018); Umar Abdula Sokoor Sorathia vs.
Intelligence officer, NCB (JT 1999 5 SC 394); and Kallu Mal
Gupta vs. State (2000 I AD Delhi 107).
Findings of the Court
25. I have considered the rival submissions and have carefully
gone through the record. I have also perused the written
submissions filed on behalf of A1 and compendium of case laws
filed on behalf of the accused persons. The accused persons have
been charged under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468
and 471 of IPC along with substantive offences under Sections
420 and 471 of IPC.
26. Section 120A IPC has defined Criminal Conspiracy as
T
follow: PRIYADARSHINI
“120A.Definition of criminal conspiracy.– When two or Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:10 +0530
illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal
means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 20 of 46
conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an
agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance
thereof. Explanation.– It is immaterial whether the illegal
act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.”
27. On the aspect of criminal conspiracy, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Vinay Jain vs. State and another (Decision
dated 13.02.2015 in Crl. M.C.4792/2014) has observed that:
“21. On perusal of Section 120-A of IPC, it is manifestly
clear that for imputing a person as a ‘conspirator’ there has
to be existence of ‘an agreement’ between two more
persons either to do ‘an illegal act’ or to do a ‘legal act
through illegal means’. Since, legislature has not provided
any deeming provision to draw presumption in favour of
existence of conspiracy, the prosecution cannot be
absolved of the responsibility of bringing sufficient
circumstances pointing towards existence of an agreement
amongst the conspirators do to an ‘illegal act’ or ‘a legal
act through illegal means’. Apart from commission of
‘act’, prosecution is also vested with a responsibility to
bring evidence on record of the crime committed in
T
PRIYADARSHINI
pursuance of ‘an agreement’ made between the accused
persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. It is Digitally signed by
T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:14 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 21 of 46
well settled proposition of law that an offence of
conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on
mere suspicion, surmises or inferences which are not
supported by cogent or acceptable evidence.”
28. In State of Kerala vs. P. Sugathan (2000 8 SCC 203), the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that for a case to made out under
Section 120B of IPC, circumstances should give rise to a
conclusive inference of an agreement between two or more
persons to commit an offence. Circumstances should be prior in
time than actual commission of an offence. A few bits here or
there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be
adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the
crime of criminal conspiracy.
29. Section 420 of IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under:-
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.–Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part
of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
Digitally signedeither description for a term which may extend to seven
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:18 +0530years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 22 of 46
30. In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and others vs. Sudha
Seetharam and others (2019 INSC 216), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has held that:
“The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
420 are as follows:
i. a person must commit the offence of cheating under
Section 415; and
ii. the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything
signed or seal and capable of being converted into valuable
security.”
31. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute
an offense under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of
IPC. Section 415 of IPC reads as:
“Section 415. Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving any
person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property or
intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit
to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is
Digitally signed
by Tlikely to cause damage or harm to that person in body,
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:22 +0530mind, reputation, property, is said to “cheat”.”
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 23 of 46
32. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as
follows:
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement
of a person by deceiving him;
(ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally
induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent
that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person
so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit
to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived; and
(iii) in case covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission
should be one, which causes or likely to cause damage or
harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or
property.
33. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC. It is reproduced
as under:-
“463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false documents or
false electronic record or part of a document or electronic
record, with intent 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 part with property, or to enter into any
express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud
or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery”. T
PRIYADARSHINIDigitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:25 +0530CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 24 of 46
34. The making of false document is defined under Section
464 IPC. It is reproduced as under, so far as relevant:-
“464. Making a false document: – A person is said to make
a false document or false electronic record –
First – Who dishonestly or fraudulently –
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a
document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any
electronic record;
(c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic
record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document
or the authenticity of the electronic signature,
with the intention of causing it to be believed that suchdocument or part of document, electronic record or
electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed,
transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by
whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not
made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed…”
35. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the
accused should have made a false document. The false document
must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the
public or to any class of public or to any community. Further the
expression “intent to defraud” implies conduct coupled with Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:29 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 25 of 46
intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words,
defraud involves two conceptions namely, the deceit and injury
to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right
possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property.
The term ‘forgery’ as used in the statute is used in its ordinary
and popular acceptation. The definition of the offence of forgery
declares the offence to be completed when a false document or
false part of a document is made with specified intention. The
relevant questions are (i) is the document false; (ii) is it made by
the accused; and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If all
the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is
guilty of committing the offence of forgery. In order to constitute
an offence of forgery, the forged documents must be made
dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not
tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of
property or an element of injury. Every forgery postulates a false
document either in whole or in part, however, small. The intent
to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person
makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs
with an intent or cause to believe that the document was signed
by a person whom he knows it was not signed.
36. Section 24 of IPC defines “dishonestly” as whoever does
anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing
dishonestly. Further, “Fraudulently” is defined in Section 25 of T
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.05.23
15:01:33 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 26 of 46
IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that
thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The word
“defraud” includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an
ingredient of the definition of the word “dishonestly” while it is
an important ingredient of the definition of the word
“fraudulently”. The former involves a pecuniary or economic
gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that
element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions
“dishonestly” and “fraudulently” used in the various sections of
the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore, the
definition of one may give colour to the other.
37. Punishment for forgery for the purpose of cheating is
defined in Section 468 of IPC. It is reproduced as under:-
“Whoever, commits forgery, intending that the document
or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of
cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a terms which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine.”
38. Section 471 of IPC deals with using of forged documents
as genuine. It is reproduced as under:
“471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic
record.–Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as
genuine any document or electronic record which he
knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document orCR Cases/451/2019
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:46 +0530
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 27 of 46
electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as
if he had forged such document or electronic record.”
Re: Criminal conspiracy
39. As mentioned in the chargesheet, the primary charge
against the accused persons is that “accused Manoj Kumar Saini,
accused Atul Kumar Saxena and accused Rajnish Jain entered
into a criminal conspiracy to forge the resignation letters of some
of the members by fraudulent means so as to enrol new members
and submitted the same to RCS in order to cheat the RCS office”
and in view of said allegation, the accused persons have been
charged under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and
471 of IPC.
40. On the aspect of existence of criminal conspiracy amongst
the accused persons to cheat the RCS, the prosecution ought to
have placed on record material showing sufficient circumstances
pointing towards existence of an agreement amongst the accused
persons to do the alleged illegal acts of cheating and forgery. The
agreement ought to have been there prior to commission of
alleged criminal acts i.e. the accused persons ought to have
entered into a criminal conspiracy prior to 1997. A1 resigned
from the Society on 20.09.1997 and A2 resigned on 18.06.1998,
which is prior to the date when resignation letters of Mr. B.B.
Seth and Ms. Jyoti Sardana were accepted by the Governing
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors Digitally signed
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 28 of 46 by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:51 +0530
Body which consisted of A3. Therefore, there could not have
been any agreement between the accused persons w.r.t.
acceptance of purportedly forged resignation letters of B.B. Seth
and Jyoti Sardana. Further, with respect to the resignation letters
of Rajesh Dua and Ashok Kumar, the minutes of meeting dated
20.06.1997 wherein the said resignation letters were accepted are
not available on record. Therefore, the averment that said
resignations were accepted by A1 and A2 is unsupported by the
proceedings register. With respect to the resignation of Mr.
Rajesh Dua and Mr. Ashok Kumar, the said resignations were
accepted by the Management Committee on 16.07.1997. A3 was
appointed on 16.08.1997, therefore, the allegedly forged
resignation letters of Mr. Rajesh Dua and Mr. Ashok Kumar were
accepted even before A3 was a member of the Society. Therefore,
all the accused persons were not office bearers of the Society at
the relevant time(s) and cannot be termed as co-conspirators. In
the absence of any material showing that the accused persons
were managing the affairs of the Society collectively and agreed
to commit an illegal act to cheat RCS, accused persons cannot be
charged for the offence of criminal conspiracy.
Re: Criminal conspiracy to forge documents, to use forged
document for cheating, to dishonestly or fraudulently use forged
documents as genuine and the substantive offence of usage of
forged document as genuine (Section 120B read with Sections
468 and Section 471 of IPC and substantive offence under T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
CR Cases/451/2019 T PRIYADARSHINI
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors Date: 2026.05.23
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 29 of 46 15:01:55 +0530
Section 471 IPC).
41. The averment in the chargesheet is that accused persons
entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the RCS by forging
resignation letters. On the aspect of forgery, the GEQD Reports
have not concluded that the accused persons were the ‘maker’ of
the forged documents. There is not a single witness who has
averred that the resignation letters have been forged by any of the
accused persons. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute
proof. In fact, the substantive offence of forgery has not been
alleged against the accused persons as the Investigating Agency
has not been able to trace the maker of the forged documents.
The only substantive offence averred is that the accused persons
had dishonestly or fraudulently used the forged resignation letters
as genuine having reason to believe that the said document was
forged.
42. Even the accused persons have not refuted that the alleged
resignation letters are not forged. In fact, GEQD Report has
confirmed that the resignation letters of Ms. Jyoti Sardana, Mr.
Naresh Kumar and Mr. Rajesh Dua do not bear their signatures
and as such the signatures on the resignation letters have been
forged. Whilst there is GEQD Report with respect to the
signatures of Mr. R.K. Dhingra, Mr. B.B. Seth and Mr. Ashok
Kumar in their resignation letters, it is averred that the said
persons have stated during investigation that their signatures are
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:01:59 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 30 of 46
forged. However, the forged signatures have not been sent for
comparison with the admitted signatures of the accused persons.
Therefore, there is no material on record to state that the
signatures on the resignation letters have been forged by the
accused persons. Therefore, any allegation relating to forgery by
the accused persons of the resignation letters is not made out.
43. The accused persons have also been charged under Section
471 of IPC. Section 471 of IPC provides punishment for
fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine any document or
electronic record which the accused persons know or have reason
to believe to be a forged document. One of the essential
ingredients of section 471 is the knowledge or reasonable belief
on the part of the person using the document that it is a forged
one. For the reasons below, substantive offence of Section 471 of
IPC is not made out:
a) Firstly, the accused persons have not “used” the
resignation letter as the only material available against
them is that they signed the minutes of the meeting in
which the forged resignation letters were accepted. Mere
forwarding of the resignation letters to the RCS does not
tantamount to usage of the resignation letter in the absence
of any material showing how they were allegedly used for
their personal benefit by the accused persons.
b) Secondly, the prosecution has pinned criminal
culpability on the accused persons for the acceptance of
CR Cases/451/2019 T
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors PRIYADARSHINI
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 31 of 46Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:02:07 +0530
the resignation letter basis the GEQD Report wherein the
signatures of the accused persons in the proceedings
register of the relevant dates when the impugned
resignation letters were accepted have been found to match
with the specimen signatures of the accused persons.
Whilst A1 and A2 have denied attending the meetings on
the dates linked to them, even if the prosecution’s case is
admitted that A1 and A2 accepted the resignation letters of
Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mr. R.K. Dhingra and Mr.
Rajesh Dua, Mr. Ashok Kumar and A3 accepted the forged
resignation letter of B.B. Seth and Jyoti Sardana, the mere
acceptance of the resignation letters by the accused persons
in their capacity as governing body member of the Society
does not lead to an inference that the accused persons were
aware that the resignation letters accepted by them were
forged (especially in light of the fact that multiple
resignation letters were accepted on each relevant date).
c) Thirdly, the element of dishonest usage of the forged
resignation letters is not made out as there is no material to
show that the forged documents were used by the accused
persons with the intention to cause wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss to another person. The persons
whose forged resignation letters have been purportedly
accepted by the accused person had never paid any T
PRIYADARSHINI
contribution towards land or construction. The said persons Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
did not have any vested right in the society by being 15:02:36 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 32 of 46
member. They never complained about the forged
resignation letters. Therefore, wrongful loss was not
occasioned to them. Further, at the time of land allotment,
A1 and A2 were no longer members. Even though, A3 has
been allotted land, there is no material to show that he
“used” the forged documents. Hence, the element of
“dishonesty” is not made. At this stage, it is pertinent to
note that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in A.P. Narang
vs. CBI (2011 SCC OnLine Del 212) in a similar matter
dealing with forged resignation letter of a member of
CGHS has held that dishonest or fraudulent use of forged
documents is not made out in light of the fact that the
persons whose signatures have been forged, have not
complained about the same or offered any payment to the
society.
d) Fourthly, the element of fraudulent usage of the
forged document is also not made out as, from the material
placed on record, it cannot be said that the forged
resignation letters were accepted with an “intent to
defraud”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimla vs. Delhi
Administration (AIR 1963 Sc 1572) has held that
expression ‘defraud’ involves two elements, namely, deceit
and injury to the person deceived. It is a matter of record
that on the relevant dates there were many resignations and
enrolments which were approved by the accused persons.
There could not have been any 'intent to deceive' as all the T
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
CR Cases/451/2019 Date: 2026.05.23
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors 15:02:40 +0530
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 33 of 46
six persons (whose resignation letters are purportedly
forged) are mentioned in the freeze list which was sent by
the Society to the RCS. Moreover, during investigation,
K.G. Kashyap, Deputy Director (Housing) DDA has stated
in his statement under Section 161 of the Code that the list
of members of the Society is duly approved and verified by
the RCS.
e) Fifthly, there is no evidence re: conscious
knowledge that the resignation letters were forged on the
part of the accused persons. No material qua knowledge,
participation or intent which could lead to invocation of
Section 471 IPC.
f) Lastly, it is questionable why the IO has picked and
chosen the persons whose signatures were to be sent to
GEQD. With respect to the meeting in which resignation
letters of Mr. B.B. Seth and Ms. Jyoti Sardana were
accepting, the IO has only obtained the GEQD opinion qua
A3. The IO ought to have examined R.K. Jain, N.K. Jain
and Vinod Jain (who were present at the meeting as per the
proceedings register) and examined whether such a
meeting was conducted? Prior to sending the signatures to
GEQD, it would have been logical for the IO to first
examine them. Also, no records are available that specimen
signatures of R.K. Jain, N.K. Jain and Vinod Jain were sent
to GEQD for comparison with their signatures on the
Proceedings Register. The said persons have not even been
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CR Cases/451/2019 Digitally signed by
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors T PRIYADARSHINI
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 34 of 46 Date: 2026.05.23
15:02:44 +0530
joined in the investigation and have been given a clean
chit. The IO ought to have examined each of the member
of the new management thoroughly to determine collusion
with Builder and RCS, if any.
Re: Criminal Conspiracy to cheat RCS and dishonestly induce
delivery of property and the substantive offence of cheating RCS
and dishonestly inducing RCS to deliver property (Section 120B
r/w Section 420 of IPC and the substantive offence of Section
420 IPC)
44. The averment against the accused persons is that the
accused persons, in pursuance to criminal conspiracy, cheated the
RCS and dishonestly induced RCS to deliver property. Cheating
is punishable under Section 420 of IPC where as a consequence
of cheating, the person cheated is dishonestly induced to deliver
any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole
or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security. With respect to A1 and A2, this averment fails at the
very outset as RCS never delivered any property to A1 and A2,
therefore, the limb of delivery of property is not met qua A1 and
A2. Even with respect to A3, who was one of the members of the
Society who was allotted the land, the essentials are not met out
Digitally signed
as there is no material to show that he induced the RCS to deliver
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:02:48 +0530
/ allot land.
CR Cases/451/2019 CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 35 of 46
45. In Muhammad Bakhsh and another vs. Emperor (Decision
dated 16.01.1941 of Hon’ble High Court of Lahore), it has been
held that in order to constitute cheating under Section 415 of
IPC, it is necessary to prove that the person deceived must have
suffered damage of harm in body, mind, reputation or property. In
the said judgment, it was observed that:
“It appears to me that the definition of ‘cheating’ in
Section 415, Penal Code requires modification in order to
cover cases where one person is deceived and another
person suffers, or is likely to suffer, damage or harm in
body, mind, reputation or property. It has been revealed in
a number of cases that serious deception has been practised
on Government officials as a result of which certain other
persons have suffered a great deal of harm in reputation or
property. As the definition of ‘cheating’ at present stands,
such cases are not covered by Section 415, Penal Code,
and the punishment prescribed in Section 419 and Section
420 cannot be awarded to persons who practice deception
on Government servants which results in damage and harm
to third parties. Persons who practice such deception may
be convicted under Section 182, Penal Code, but the
punishment prescribed for that offence is not sufficiently
deterrent, and it is desirable that such convicts should be
liable to be heavily punished under Section 420, Penal
Code, which prescribes a maximum sentence of seven T
PRIYADARSHINIyears’ rigorous imprisonment.” Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:02:52 +0530CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 36 of 46
46. In Hari Sahoo vs State of Bihar (AIR 1970 SC 843), it has
been held that where false representation made by the appellants
in obtaining the railway receipts in the form in which it was
issued did not cast any additional liability on the railway, the
issue of the railway receipt, therefore, was not likely to cause any
damage or harm to the railway and no question of cheating of the
railway arose.
47. In State of Maharashtra vs. Ram Chandra Keshav Bhala
(2004 CRILJ 2823), it has been held that:
“7. No doubt, the accused has made the applications for
the bona fide student certificates by deceiving the school
and college authorities into believing that the applications
were being made by the brother of the accused himself in
whose name the certificates are issued. But intention to
deceive is not the same as an intention to defraud. Nor can
it be said that the applications were made dishonestly, as
no wrongful loss has been suffered nor wrongful gain
made. In order to attract the provisions of Section
465,467,471 read with Sections 419 and 420 IPC, it is
important that the act must be done fraudulently or
dishonestly. It cannot be said that either the school
authorities or college authorities have suffered any loss nor
can it be said that the respondent has made any wrongful
Digitally signedgain by making the said applications and practising
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:02:58 +0530deception upon the school and college authorities.”
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 37 of 46
48. In Syed Sajad Nazir vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR
2021 J&K 148), it was observed that “There is no allegation in
the complaint that the petitioner at any point of time by way of
any deception induced the complainant to deliver any property to
the petitioner. The complainant has raised the dispute with regard
to the fact that he was made to purchase the surgical equipments
from the clinic of the petitioner and these allegations do not at all
constitute the offence of cheating”.
49. In Murali Kochu Kunju vs. State of Kerala (AIR OnLine
2020 KER 1344), it was observed that where there is no
allegation of complainant being put to wrongful loss, there
cannot be any case of cheating.
50. The investigating agency has not set out in the chargesheet
and the prosecution has not explained during arguments as to
how wrongful loss was suffered by RCS. No additional liability
has accrued to RCS on account of the alleged acts. Further, there
has been no inducement as it was expected of RCS to examine
the resignation letters and approve the same. In his statement
recorded under Section 161 of the Code, K.G. Kashyap, Deputy
Director (Housing) DDA has stated that duty of DDA is to allot
land on predetermined rates to CGHS referred and recommended
by the RCS. He has further stated that the list of members of
CGHS are to be duly approved and verified by the RCS office
and then forwarded to the DDA for allotment of land. It is
unreasonable to impute knowledge to the accused persons for the
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 38 of 46
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.05.23
15:03:02 +0530
forged resignation letters when even RCS which was bound to
verify the said resignation letters has accepted the said letters and
approved the freeze list. In this context, it is rightly argued by the
accused persons that the investigation is half-baked as without
complicity of RCS, any conspiracy with respect to revival of the
Society and illegal resignation / enrolment of members cannot
survive.
51. Further, the entire chargesheet begs the questions as to why
only accused persons were found to be responsible for reviving
the defunct company and allotment of land to newly enrolled
members to the alleged determent of these six members whose
resignation letters are stated to be forged? The other executive
members of the governing body of the Society have not been
joined in the investigation and their culpability has not been
examined for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer.
52. There are various lapses in the investigation. The
prosecution has not explained whether the Society was defunct
and then revived? The Society was registered in 1983. D5 is the
proceedings register from 22.10.1983 to 07.08.1984. D6 is the
proceedings register from 29.05.1986 to 17.09.1988. D7 is the
proceedings register from 18.04.1990 to 07.07.1996. D8 is the
proceedings register from 5.07.1997 to 20.01.2001. D9 is the
proceedings register from 28.01.2001 to 26.02.2006. If the case
of the prosecution is that the Society was defunct, then it ought to
have been investigated as to whether the proceedings register
CR Cases/451/2019 T
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 39 of 46
PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:03:06 +0530
prior to 1996 were forged. In case, they were forged, all the
registers ought to have been sent to GEQD and all the members
mentioned in the Registers ought to have been joined in the
investigation. The IO has not even sent D-7 to GEQD which
could have determined the veracity of the Proceedings Register.
Especially in light of the statement of Parvesh Gulati that he did
not attend any meeting after 1987, D7 could have been fabricated
for revival of the Society and therefore, forensic examination
ought to have been done of D-7. Further, the IO ought to have
examined who benefitted from the revival. Surprisingly, most of
the resignation letters are admitted to be genuine, and therefore,
it cannot even be said from the material placed before the Court
that all the proceedings were forged which would lead to a
conclusion that the Society was never defunct. The entire
foundation of the investigation was to identify Societies which
were defunct and later revived by using forged documents,
therefore, the entire basis of the investigation is then not made
out. These contrary findings ought to have been harmonised by
the IO by further cohesive and complete investigation to
understand the true picture. As complete and full investigation
has not been conducted, the accused persons cannot be charged
with the offences alleged in the chargesheet on the basis of
contrary and inconsistent findings.
53. Also, in his statement, L.K. Sharma, officer of RCS, has
stated that while the society was registered in 1983, the file was
processed on 20.09.1996. It was also noted by him that the last
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 40 of 46 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.05.23
15:03:10 +0530
noting on the file was in July 1993 and a notice under Section
63(2) of DCS Act had been issued to the Society. It was also
noted that in 1993, none of the members appeared before the
RCS and therefore, the freeze list could not be verified. Further,
the total strength of the Society was 90 on 31.06.1986 and all of a
sudden, in 1996, it was shown that 21 members were enrolled
and 51 members had resigned. It is stated that in this background,
the affairs of the Society were investigated. The IO ought to have
examined the new management of the Society under whose
regime, the number of members was reduced to 60 as the said 60
members were allotted land and have benefited from their
enrolment as members. However, no investigation has been done
qua the new management and this fallacy has rendered the entire
investigation futile.
54. IO has outrightly ignored certain important information
which have been collected by him during investigation.
Statement of Deepak Kumar has been recorded during
investigation and he has stated that no person by the name
Yogesh Sharma has resided in A-1 Local Shopping Complex,
Vivekanand Puri, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and no one in his family
has been member of the Society. Therefore, further investigation
ought to have been conducted as to whether the enrolled
members were fictitious, however, no such investigation has been
conducted.
55. It is pertinent to note that the RC was registered in
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
T
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 41 of 46 PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:03:14 +0530
pursuance of directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ
Petition No. 10066/2004 for conducting an enquiry into alleged
irregular revival of certain defunct / wound-up CGHS. In this
background, the Investigating Agency ought to have mentioned
in the charge sheet whether the Society was defunct or wound-up
and whether it was revived illegally by certain persons? If the
Investigating Agency had determined that the revival of the
Society was illegal, the Investigating Agency ought to have
further investigated and traced the persons who were responsible
for reviving it and whether documents were forged for said
revival. If documents were forged for revival, the Investigating
Agency ought to have identified who forged the documents and
who constituted the management at the relevant time of allotment
of land? The chargesheet should have clearly set out the names of
the persons who benefited from the said revival and the persons
who were affected / suffered losses on account of said illegal
revival. The chargesheet is silent on all these aspects. In fact, no
investigation has been conducted re: the members who were
inducted at the time of allotment of land as they would have been
able to throw light on the persons who were at the helm of affairs
of the Society at the time when the land was allotted and whether
said persons facilitated their entry into the membership of the
Society. They could have also stated whether any person illegally
gained by induction of new members and wrongful resignation of
the other members. In the absence of investigation and findings
on these matters, the chargesheet is speculative and based on
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 42 of 46
conjectures and surmises. No grave suspicion has been raised
against the accused persons.
56. To elaborate further on paragraph 55, it is the admitted
case of the prosecution that on 16.07.1997, a meeting is stated to
have been conducted by A1, A2, Kamaljeet Chhabra and Pawan
Kumar and in the said meeting, resignation of 19 members and
enrolment of 33 new members are stated to have been approved.
On the said date, it is averred that resignation of Rajesh Dua and
Ashok Kumar were approved, however, during investigation, the
said persons denied resigning from the Society. The IO ought to
have joined the 17 other resigned members and the 33 new
members in the investigation and examined as to who induced
them to be inducted as a member and whether they paid any
premium in this regard? By joining them in the investigation, the
IO could have ascertained the veracity of the meeting and the
persons who were responsible for the same. This applies equally
to the averments against A3.
57. The entire case of the prosecution hinges on the GEQD
Reports wherein it has been confirmed that the signatures on the
relevant Proceeding Register belong to the accused persons.
Whilst the said Report only confirms that the signatures on the
Proceeding Register belong to the accused persons, there is no
material to show that they had a reason to believe that the
resignation letters were forged, that they used the said forged TPRIYADARSHINI
letters or that they induced RCS to deliver property basis such Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:03:19 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 43 of 46
forged resignation letters etc.
58. There is no foundational material placed on record which
attributes any specific overt act, dishonest intention, fraudulent
inducement, act of forgery or conscious use of any forged
document by the accused persons. The mere mechanical
invocation of penal sections in the chargesheet cannot sustain
continuation of criminal proceedings. There is no statement of
any witness stating that the accused persons procured resignation
of any member. Further, none of the newly enrolled members
have stated that the accused persons guaranteed induction as a
member of the Society at the time of allotment of land. The
Investigating Agency has not investigated why the initial
members of the Society resigned and whether such resignations
were voluntary? The failure to collect evidence of the persons
who were actual victims has weakened the entire foundation of
the case.
59. The entire investigation is speculative and directionless.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition no.
10066/2004 had directed investigation on the aspect of “unholy
alliance and connivance between builder mafia and the officers
working in the Office of Registrar Co-operative Societies, DDA
and the Societies and the fraudulent revival of defunct societies.”
No such investigation re: the role of builders or the collusion
T
PRIYADARSHINI
between the builders and the Society has been conducted by the
IO. The Investigating Agency has not given any reasons for not
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:03:23 +0530
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 44 of 46
arraying other office bearers as accused persons. The other office
bearers ought to have been examined in order to determine the
persons who were actually in-charge of the Society at the
relevant time. A1 and A3, both acted as Secretary at different
points in time, however, no member of the governing body has
been joined in the investigation for reasons best known to the
Investigating Agency. No material has been placed on record to
show that the accused persons played any role in inducting
members into the Society. The actual beneficiaries or actors
behind the alleged replacement of members remain untraced. It is
clear that the real culprits have not been identified by the IO and
the accused persons have been arraigned only basis surmises and
inferences which are not adequate to raise any grave suspicion.
60. In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited
vs. State of Maharashtra (1972 3 SCC 282), it was held that the
order framing a charge affects a person’s liberty substantially and
therefore, it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether
the material warrants the framing of the charge. In State of
Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy (AIR 1977 SC 1489), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that “while considering whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused, the
court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise
of which it can determine the question whether the material on
the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a
conviction can be said reasonably to be possibly”. T
PRIYADARSHINI
CR Cases/451/2019 Digitally signed by
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors T PRIYADARSHINI
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 45 of 46 Date: 2026.05.23
15:03:27 +0530
61. It is settled law that the provisions contained in the Code
protect the accused from prolonged harassment which is a
necessary consequence of a protracted trial. If upon consideration
of the record of the case and relied upon documents, submissions
made on behalf of accused persons and prosecution, the court is
not convinced that there are sufficient grounds against the
accused persons, then the court has to discharge the accused
persons by recording its reasons for doing so. Furthermore, if the
court finds that the charges so invoked against the accused
persons in the chargesheet do not make out a prima facie case or
not furnish basis for framing of charge, the court has no option
but to discharge the accused persons.
62. In view of the discussions above and also considering the
submissions on merits as well as on law argued by Ld. Counsels
for the accused persons, no case is made out against accused
persons. Hence, accused persons are hereby discharged of the
offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468 and
471 IPC and the substantive offences of Sections 420 and 471 of
IPC for which they have been summoned to face trial.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.05.23
15:03:33 +0530
Announced in open Court
on 21st day of May, 2026
(T. Priyadarshini)
CJM/RADC/New Delhi
21.05.2026
CR Cases/451/2019
CBI Vs. Manoj Kumar Saini and Ors
RC No. 07(A)/2007 Page No. 46 of 46
[ad_1]
Source link
