Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 62Ct. Cases 748/2023
GAURAV NAYYAR Vs. AARTI NAYYAR00/2023
(PrashantVihar)
30.01.2025
Present: Ld. counsel for the complainant (through VC)
This is an application u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Matter is
pending for order on the said complaint.
Arguments have already been heard.
Brief facts of the case are that accused no.1 Arti
Nayyar is wife of the complainant and accused no.2 Virender
Singh Chaudhary is the counsel of accused no.1 in about 14-15
cases between the parties.
That after spending 30 years in marriage, without
any reason, accused no.1 left the company of the complainant on
17.05.2015. That complainant has filed divorce petition against
the accused no.1 in appropriate section bearing no. 1727/2021
titled as Gaurav Nayyar vs Arti Nayyar pending before Hon’ble
Family Court/North District/Delhi. That on 20.01.2023, accused
no.2 filed an application before the court of Ld. Family Court
alongwith affidavit of accused no.1 which was attested on the
same day. However, accused no.1 was not physically present in
the court on that day. Complainant has placed on record the copy
of the said application alongwith containing forged signatures of
accused no.1 and verified by accused no.2 as Ex. CW-1/1. It is
alleged on 20.01.2023, in the absence of accused no.1, her
affidavit was signed and attested before the Oath Commissioner
and during the hearing in aforementioned case, this fact was
brought into the Knowledge of Hon’ble Family Court and on
seeking the clarification by the Hon’ble Court, accused no.2
could not give any proper answer and for this Hon’ble Court had
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
also ordered to give the clarification. Complainant has placed on
record copy of the order dt. 20.01.2023. Further after inspection
of all ongoing cases filed between the parties, complainant
discovered that signatures on various petitions, affidavit,
applications and vakalatnama in cases were not penned by
accused no.1. Rather someone else had signed on the place of
accused no.1. Multiple cases have been filed against the
complainant after forging the signatures of accused no.1.
After considering the arguments and deposition of
CW1 recorded before the court, court is of the view that
complainant has not placed on record any document or any
ordersheet of Hon’ble court which could suggest that accused
no.1 has admitted the fact that her signatures were forged by
accused no.2 for the purpose of filing the cases against the
complainant. Complainant has also not placed on record any
document to show that how forgery has been committed with the
complainant. The allegations of the complainant are that accused
no.2 has forged the signatures of accused no.1 and filed different
different cases against the complainant. Therefore, court is of the
view that no forgery with the complainant has been committed
and he has locus-standi to file the present case. In this case, no
signature of the complainant has been forged
In view of the observations, cognizance on the
complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C., is hereby declined.
Complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
Let file be consigned to record room.
ROHIT KUMAR
JMFC(North) Rohini Courts
Delhi/30.01.2025/Court No. 14
-- 2 of 2 --