Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Singh, Mr. Ishaan Jain and Mr v. STATE

Judgment

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731, assails the summoning order dated 19th September, 2019 passed by the CMM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, and the revisional order dated 16th November, 2019 passed by the ASJ, Dwarka Courts, dismissing the Petitioners’ challenge to the said summoning order. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The dispute arises from a private complaint instituted by Late Sh. Sukhbir Singh, son of Late Sh. Chunni Lal, against his co-legal heirs (the 1 “CrPC” Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:25.12.2025 13:51:14 CRL.M.C. 6495/2019 Page 1 of 21 Petitioners). Upon the demise of the complainant on 3rd April, 2017, Respondent No. 2, his son is pursing the compliant.

3. The controversy relates to certain agricultural land forming part of the estate of Late Sh. Chunni Lal, situated within the jurisdiction of SDM Najafgarh, Delhi, and recorded in the revenue records under Khata/Khatoni No. 105/2018, comprising various Khasra numbers in the concerned village.

4. The complainant’s case was that, without his knowledge or consent, an application for mutation in respect of the said land was moved before the Tehsildar, Najafgarh, in the joint names of the legal heirs. It was alleged that the complainant had neither signed the mutation application nor the affidavit said to accompany it, and that his signatures thereon had been forged by the accused persons.

5. Apprehending misuse of the alleged forged documents to deal with his share in future, the complainant addressed representations to the revenue authorities and lodged a complaint with the SHO, P.S. Najafgarh, on 31st August, 2015. When no action followed, he approached higher authorities.

6. The complainant then approached the Magistrate. A status report noted an inter se dispute among the heirs concerning the estate of Late Sh. Chunni Lal and recorded that, on a comparison, the signatures on the mutation affidavit appeared to differ from the complainant’s signatures.

7. By order dated 2nd March, 2016, the Magistrate dismissed the complainant’s application under Section 156(3) CrPC, observing that the allegation of forgery was unsupported by handwriting expert opinion. The

revision was dismissed on 21st March, 2017, with Sessions Court observing that, even assuming forgery, the necessary dishonest or fraudulent intention was not made out since mutation primarily records devolution of names in Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:25.12.2025 13:51:14 CRL.M.C. 6495/2019 Page 2 of 21 revenue records.

8. After the complainant’s demise, Respondent No. 2 deposed as CW-1 and reiterated the allegations. A Patwari from the office of the SDM, Najafgarh, also deposed and produced the relevant revenue record.

9. On 14th February, 2019, the questioned and admitted signatures of the complainant were sent to the FSL, Rohini. In its report dated 29th May, 2019, the FSL stated that it was not possible to express any opinion on the material available and suggested that further admitted signatures, preferably executed prior to the questioned signatures, be supplied for examination.

10. Despite the inclusive FSL opinion, the Magistrate, invoking Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18722 visually compared the signatures and recorded, in strong terms, that the difference between the questioned and admitted signatures was “astonishing”, “as different as chalk and cheese”, and that the Court was “anguished and amused” at the inability of the FSL to express a clear opinion. Proceeding on that premise, the Magistrate then held that offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 18603 IPC were made out, and summoned all the legal heirs except two (Late Narayani Devi and Late Satpal). The revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court, observing that the Petitioners’ submissions could be considered at the stage of charge. CONTENTIONS

11. Mr Ramesh Gupta, Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, assails the impugned orders on the following grounds:

11.1. The summoning order dated 19th September, 2019 suffers from serious legal infirmities, as there was material to justify summoning. The 2 “IEA” Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:25.12.2025 13:51:14 CRL.M.C. 6495/2019 Page 3 of 21 FSL report being inconclusive, the Magistrate could not have disregarded the expert opinion and proceeded to compare the disputed signatures on his own.

11.2. Respondent No. 2 (CW-1) suppressed a material fact. In mutation proceedings concerning the same land, he made a statement before the SDM on 9th October, 2017 recording no objection to mutation in favour of all legal heirs as per natural succession. The SDM’s order dated 2nd April, 2018, recording this statement, reads as follows: “During proceeding before this Court, Sukhbir Singh S/o of late Chandgi Ram has died and his son namely Sh. Kishan Yadav has stated on record vide the statement dated 09.10.2017 that he does not have any objection if the suit land is mutated in the name of legal hiers of Late Sh. Chuni Lal as per the law of natural succession.” This non-disclosure by respondent No.2 when he deposed as CW-1 on 7th April, 2018 amounts to suppression of a crucial circumstance, which would have materially impacted the summoning order. Reliance is placed on MCD v. State of Delhi.4

11.3. Even on the complainant’s case, the mutation records the names of all legal heirs, including the complainant’s branch. The summoning order, however, proceeds as if the alleged false affidavit necessarily translates into cheating and forgery aimed at depriving the complainant. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Supreme Court judgements in Mariam Fasihuddin & Ors. v. State & Ors.5, and Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andra Pradesh & Ors.6 3 “IPC” 4 AIR 2005 SC 2658. 5 MANU/SC/0051/2024. 6 2025 INSC 1096. Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:25.12.2025 13:51:14 CRL.M.C. 6495/2019 Page 4 of 21

11.4. Since the alleged forgery pertained to documents filed before the SDM in quasi-judicial proceedings, the appropriate course was to move the SDM concerned. In view of the bar under Section 195 CrPC, the complaint before the Magistrate was itself not maintainable.

11.5. Continuation of the criminal proceedings at instance of Respondent No. 2 is motivated and constitutes an abuse of the process of court which warrants exercise of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned summoning orders. Reliance in this regard is placed on State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.7, and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP.8

12. Per Contra, Mr Manoj Joshi, counsel for respondent No. 2, supports the impugned orders and, in substance, submits are as follows:

12.1. A summoning order is not required to be an elaborate or detailed order. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi),9 it is submitted that Section 204 CrPC merely requires the Magistrate to form an opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, and does not mandate recording of detailed reasons. The impugned summoning order is, in any event, a detailed and speaking order.

12.2. The summoning order rests on legally admissible material and suffers from no infirmity. The FSL report, while inconclusive in the absence of further admitted signatures, does not preclude the court from exercising its power under Section 73 IEA. The Magistrate, upon comparing the questioned and admitted signatures, recorded a clear prima facie finding of dissimilarity.