Final Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CR REV NO. 242/2023
SHOBHA DUBE
VS.
M.C. GUPTA & ANR.
16.05.2025
Present: Sh. Sidhharth Arora, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. Harshit Jain, Ld. Counsel for R-1 through VC.
Sh. Hargovind Jha, Ld. Counsel for R-2 through VC.
Heard detailed arguments on behalf of all the stakeholders.
Put up for orders.
ORDER
1. Present petition is against the order dated 07.01.2023
whereby the Ld. MM has discharged both the respondents for the
offence under S. 423/208/209 IPC. On LDOH, the ld. Counsel
for petitioner has submitted that he is only pressing the present
revision petition qua the findings of Ld. MM for the offence
under S. 423 IPC. During arguments, it is further submitted that
in addition to the offence under S. 423 IPC, the offence under S.
427 IPC is also made out.
Page No. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
CR REV NO. 242/2023
SHOBHA DUBE
VS.
M.C. GUPTA & ANR.
2. I have perused the order dated 07.01.2023. This case
has chequered history. As per the Trial Court Record, vide order
dated 23.01.2019, charges were framed against the accused
persons for the offence under S. 465/467/468/471/208/209/120B
IPC. The said order was challenged in revision. The Ld. Sessions
Judge vide order dated 18.09.2020 while setting aside the order
dated 23.01.2019 discharged all the accused persons for the
offences under S. 465/467/468/471 IPC. As regards the offences
under S. 208/209 IPC, the matter was remanded back for
considering it afresh on the point of charge. The
complainant/petitioner also joined the said revision proceedings
and sought framing of additional charges under S. 193/199/423
IPC and the said prayer was also remanded back for
consideration before the Ld. MM. Thereafter, the Ld. MM passed
the order dated 07.01.2023 whereby he discharged all the
accused persons. Now, the said order has been challenged on the
aspect of the finding of Ld. MM in respect of S. 423 IPC. In
Page No. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
CR REV NO. 242/2023
SHOBHA DUBE
VS.
M.C. GUPTA & ANR.
addition, it is argued that the offence under S. 427 IPC is also
made out against the respondent. It is prayed that order dated
07.01.2023 be set aside and charge be framed against
respondents for the offence under S. 423/427 IPC
3. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention herein that
the petitioner who is the complainant before the Ld. MM has
never made any submission for invocation of S. 427 IPC. It is for
the first time in the present revision petition that she has come up
with the plea that the offence under S. 427 IPC is also made out.
The said plea is without any basis and is accordingly dismissed.
4. So far as ingredients of Section 423 IPC is
concerned, it requires that a person who dishonestly or
fraudulently signs, executes or becomes a party to any deed or
instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge
any property, or any interest therein, and which contains any false
statement relating to the consideration for such transfer or charge,
Page No. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
CR REV NO. 242/2023
SHOBHA DUBE
VS.
M.C. GUPTA & ANR.
or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is
really intended to operate, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
5. In this regard, the allegation of complainant is that
the deceased Aditya Prasad Dube had entered into agreement to
sell with R1 despite the fact that he had executed the
relinquishment deed in favor of her husband Sharad Dube. R2 is
a witness in the said agreement to sell. I have perused the entire
agreement to sell. In the said agreement to sell, in clause no. 3,
the parties have noted about the pendency of the Civil Suit
wherein the deceased Aditya Prasad Dube and the other LRs had
challenged the relinquishment deed. The Ld. MM while
considering that the factum of the relinquishment deed and the
pendency of the dispute on the subject property is duly
mentioned in the said agreement to sell has rightly held that the
first ingredient of dishonest or fraudulent execution of a deed or
Page No. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
CR REV NO. 242/2023
SHOBHA DUBE
VS.
M.C. GUPTA & ANR.
agreement is not made out.
6. In the given facts and circumstances and on the basis
of above discussion, the petitioner has failed to show any
perversity or illegality in the order dated 07.01.2023. The same is
upheld.
The revision petition is dismissed.
Trial Court Record, if any, along-with copy of order be
sent back forthwith. The revision file be consigned to the
Record Room.
(KIRAN GUPTA)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/16.05.2025
Page No. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --