$~SB-2&3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: September 16, 2011
+ Crl.M.C.No.13/2002
G.S.SALUJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Tamim Qadri, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Firdouse Qutbwair,
Advocate for State.
+ Crl.M.C.No.3811/2002
RAVINDER SALUJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Tamim Qadri, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Firdouse Qutbwair,
Advocate for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners, who are husband and wife are
aggrieved by 2 different orders where-under taking
cognizance of complaints filed by the 2nd respondent in
both petitions, the 2 have been summoned.
Crl.M.C.No.13/2002 & 3811/2002 Page 1 of 3
2. The complaint in question pertains to stated offences
committed by the petitioners as also alleged co-accused,
Punita Saluja, relating to Sections 467/467/477A/420 IPC
read with Section 109/120-B/34 IPC.
3. The complaint in question appears to be a fall out of
certain documents produced by the accused in another FIR
registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent who
alleged that Ms.Punita Saluja had developed intimacy with
him and enticed him to hand over signed blank cheques
and that the other co-accused, who are her relations, used
the same to siphoned off `1.15 crores from his account. In
said FIR, accused produced an agreement as also 3 letters
under cover of which the cheques were statedly issued by
the complainant.
4. As per the complainant in question the agreement
relied upon as also the 3 letters were the result of blank
papers signed by the complainant being used to fabricate
the documents.
5. Suffice would it be to state that in view of the law
declared by the Constitution Bench reported as (2005) 4
SCC 370 Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah
& Anr., since the alleged forgery do not relate to
documents in Court record but relate to stated fabrication
resorted to outside the Court, Section 195 Cr.P.C. would
have no application.
6. That apart, whether or not the cheques are a result of
the complainant being enticed to handover blank signed
cheques would be decided in FIR which has been
registered and needless to state the defence therein would
be tested being the stated agreement executed by the
Crl.M.C.No.13/2002 & 3811/2002 Page 2 of 3
complainant and the cheques being issued pursuant to the
said agreement. In other words, the defence would be an
integral part of the adjudication in the FIR and thus it
would be advisable that the complaint which is subject
matter of challenge in the instant petitions be tagged on
with the trial with respect to the FIR which has been
registered.
7. I highlight that the FIR relates to offences triable
before a learned Magistrate and the subject matter of the
complaint is also triable before learned Magistrate.
8. The captioned petitions are accordingly disposed of
directing that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2
would be tagged on with FIR No.223/1996 Police Station
Defence Colony.
9. No costs.
Crl.M.A.No.10941/2005 in Crl.M.C.No.13/2002
Crl.M.A.No.11047/2005 in Crl.M.C.No.3811/2002
Since the main petitions have been disposed of, both
these applications are disposed of as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011
pkb
Crl.M.C.No.13/2002 & 3811/2002 Page 3 of 3