A Delhi court has directed a Station House Officer (SHO) here to lodge an FIR and investigate any tampering of documents in a case of alleged forgery and cheating related to sale of land.
“The facts of the complaint show the commission of cognisable offences which require a thorough investigation by the police,” Additional Sessions Judge Amit Bansal said, while setting aside a magisterial court’s order which had dismissed the complaint seeking registration of FIR against the accused.
“It seems that the trial court committed a grave error as the assistance of the police or the police investigation seems to be required for unearthing the entire facts of the case, the role of the accused and as to how and when the alleged forged documents were prepared or fabricated,” the court said.
The court, while directing the SHO of Vijay Vihar Police station to lodge an FIR, held that facts prima facie disclose the commission of cheating and forgery of documents and other offences by the accused.
It allowed the revision plea saying, “It seems that the trial court did not appreciate the facts of the case properly and committed an error of law by not directing the police to register the FIR in this case.”
Holding that complainant is not in a position to unearth the entire conspiracy, the court said, “Police investigation is required for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the court and the matter is such which calls for investigation by the police.”
According to prosecution, complainant Prem Lata was planning to sell her 50 sq yards property in Vijay Vihar, Phase II here.
Accused Mahavir Prasad, a property dealer and known to the family of the complainant, offered to arrange the sale of the property for Rs 35 lakh and allegedly fraudulently obtained the signatures of her on certain papers, documents to get the possession of the property.
It was alleged that Prasad had hatched a conspiracy with his son Manish Sharma and S K Sharma, a notary public and extended threats to the complainant to hand over the property.
