Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Cr. Rev. No. 78/2022
Shashank Banerjee Vs. M/s. Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
16.11.2022
Present : Sh. Mohit Aggarwal and Sh. Akshat Aggarwal, Ld. Counsels for the
revisionist.
Sh. Vikas Pahwa, Ld. Sr. Counsel along with Sh. Shadman Siddiqui and
Sh. Rohit Jain, Ld. Counsels for the respondent.
In continuation of the court observations dated 30.08.2022, it is
submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that in the FIR No. 94/2021 PS R.K.
Puram, Sections 420 and 406 IPC are mentioned. Whereas, the present revisionist /
complainant has also grievance in terms of offences punishable under Sections 409
and 468 IPC.
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is requested to specifically mention the
documents forged by the proposed accused persons. It is replied “Invoice No.
AROIV-00061 dated 04.06.2012 as whispered in this document and for that I have
stated that in Para No. 03 of my complaint that an application form dated 04.06.2012
was filed by me and to that effect Space Towers issued me an allotment letter dated
19.01.2013.” (SIC).
This reply appears to be incoherent. It is not clarified what is “this
document”? The reply is also not clear about the particulars of the complaint of
which Para No. 03 is being referred?
Ld. Counsel is requested to clarify whether Invoice No. AROIV-00061
dated 04.06.2012 has been placed on record. It is submitted that the detail about this
invoice came to the knowledge of the complainant / revisionist through Invoice No.
AROIV-00372 dated 09.05.2013 (Page No. 55 of the TCR), which the respondent
provided to the complainant / revisionist.
Page No. 1 of 2
-- 1 of 2 --
In response to a specific court query, it is submitted that Invoice
No. AROIV-00061 dated 04.06.2012 is the only forged document.
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist / petitioner is requested to submit how
this document Invoice No. AROIV-00061 dated 04.06.2012 is claimed to be forged.
It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that in the Builder-Buyer
Agreement (Page No. 27 of the TCR), it can be seen that though money was
received by the respondent from the revisionist on 04.06.2012, whereas one of the
approvals came of 06.06.2012. Another application for approval was filed on
12.06.2012.
Court Question: How such representations would amount to forgery of
documents?
It is replied that since money was taken from the revisionist by the
respondent without the required approvals, this was a false representation. Such
false representation would amount to forgery. Reliance is placed upon the judgment
Arun Saxena & Anr. Vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
MANU/DE/3060/2018, Judgment dated 23.08.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi, wherein at Para No. 62 it was held that if the said representations were
false to the knowledge of the respondents, on the date when they were made, to
induce the petitioners to make investments in the project of the respondents, the
submissions of the petitioners / complainants that the offence under Sections
406/420/468 IPC read with 120B IPC are made out, prima facie, would have to be
accepted.
Put up on 09.01.2023 for further miscellaneous arguments.
Rajinder Singh
ASJ-06/NDD/PHC/ND
16.11.2022 (R)
Page No. 2 of 2
-- 2 of 2 --