PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. M/S QNS FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 1 of 47

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Pronounced on: 26th March, 2025

+ CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

.....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State

versus

BRIJESH SINGH @ BRAJESH THAKUR ARUN KUMAR SINGH

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Priya Hingorani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Swarn Jha, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Mr. Ravi Anand, Ms. Pragya Priya, Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocates

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. FACTUAL MATRIX 1. The instant revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 27th February, 2018 passed by the learned ASJ – 02 (FTC), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter “ASJ”) in Crl. Rev. no. 103/2017 arising out of the FIR no. 69/2007 registered at Police Station – Special Cell for offences Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 2 of 47

punishable under Sections 387/420/467/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”). 2. The complainant namely Mr. Sudhir Kumar lodged a complaint before the Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, thereby, stating that he is in coal business and mafia-man namely Mr. Brijesh Singh/respondent herein along with his brother Mr. Tribhuvan Singh threatened to kill him in view of business rivalry. 3. It was also stated by the complainant that the Varanasi Police had arrested one shooter namely Mr. Raj Tiwari, who disclosed that he came to Varanasi to kill the complainant. It was also alleged that the aforesaid accused persons are indulged in coal business and have earned handsome money by way of murder and kidnapping, and the said money has been invested in Delhi and nearby area in real estate through one Mr. Sanjay (Devaria) and retired government officer namely Mr. Deepak Sah. 4. It was alleged by the complainant that whenever the accused persons visited Delhi, one Mr. Sanjay and Mr. Deepak provided them shelter and necessary facilities. Further, in Kolkata, they illegally invested through Mr. Deepak, Mr. Suresh Singh and Mr. Raju in the real estate. 5. It was also alleged that the complainant‟s maternal uncle namely Mr. Rajeev was murdered in the year 2003, at the behest of accused persons, by one Mr. Narender Mama in Kolkata, and complainant‟s coal business partner Mr. Gajender Singh was also murdered in February, 2007 on the instructions of the accused persons. Further, the complainant is also a witness in the said case as well as in the hit list of the gang of the accused persons. 6. As per the complaint, on 28th July, 2007, the complainant visited Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 3 of 47

Delhi to conduct some business when he received a phone call from the respondent accused Mr. Brijesh Singh and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh at 7:15 PM (from mobile no. 9889388203 on mobile no. 9415230004). 7. During the said phone call, the complainant was allegedly threatened that his activities are being monitored, he was allegedly asked to send Rs. 50 Lakhs to Mr. Deepak and Rs. 25 Lakhs to Mr. Sanjay, he was also asked to file an affidavit in the murder case of Mr. Gajender and he was asked to close his coal business failing which he and his family would be murdered. In view of the same, the complaint was filed on 29th August, 2007. 8. On the basis of the above complaint, the present FIR was registered on 8th October, 2007 and respondent accused Mr. Brijesh Singh was arrested on 23rd January, 2008 at 10:00 AM from Big Bazar Ganpat Road, Bhubaneswar, Odisha and at the time of his arrest, two forged driving licenses in the name of Mr. Arun Kumar but with his own photographs were recovered from respondent‟s possession. Accused Mr. Deepak and Mr. Sanjay were also traced/searched but could not be arrested. 9. As per the material on record, during investigation, several documents pertaining to the respondent accused were recovered with regard to several bank accounts, arms license and various company accounts wherein he has been shown as Mr. Arun Kumar to conceal his identity. The recovered documents are one PAN card, arms license no. 1873-3/1983 in the name of Mr. Brijesh Singh having false address of „Asarganj, PS Tatapur, District Munger, Bihar‟, one passport bearing no. F4615310 and various bank accounts at different cities namely Kolkata, Bhubaneswar and Varanasi. Accordingly, a case was registered at Police Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 4 of 47

Station – Laxmi Nagar, District Khurd, Odisha. 10. During investigation, several documents such as driving license and various bank accounts pertaining to the accused Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, wherein, he has been shown as Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh to conceal his identity, were recovered. 11. It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution challenged the order dated 27th November, 2013 by way of a revision petition, which was allowed vide order dated 9th January, 2014. Thereafter, the accused respondent was discharged for the offences under MCOCA vide order dated 4th February, 2014. Further, the said order of discharge was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal no. 358/2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 16th May, 2014. The said order was again challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no. 1750/2017 which was dismissed vide order dated 9th October, 2017. Prudent to note here that the respondent accused was discharged only with respect to the offences punishable under the MCOCA. 12. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed in the instant FIR. Subsequently, on 5th June, 2013, accused Mr. Tribhuvan Singh was arrested from Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi pursuant to which he allegedly disclosed about his involvement in the present case by way of disclosure statement and accordingly a supplementary chargesheet was filed against him on 31st August, 2013. Thereafter, other two accused persons namely Mr. Deepak and Mr. Sanjay were already declared proclaimed offender by the Court concerned vide order dated 10th October, 2013. Following the same, two more supplementary chargesheets regarding the FSL result Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 5 of 47

of the recovered documents were filed, out of which one supplementary chargesheet was filed in the year 2013 and another in the year 2014. The chargesheet in the present case was filed under Sections 384/387/419/420/467/468/471/474/174A/506/120B of the IPC against the accused persons. 13. Pursuant to the above, vide order dated 10th April, 2015, the learned Trial Court ordered for framing of charge against the respondent herein and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh for offences under Sections 387/419/420/467/468/471/474/120B/34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 1st October, 2015, framed the aforesaid charges against the respondent accused and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh. Both the orders were challenged by the respondent accused and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh in Crl. Rev no. 103/2017, wherein, vide order dated 27th February, 2018, the learned ASJ set aside the orders dated 10th April, 2015 and 1st October, 2015, thereby, discharging the respondent accused Mr. Brijesh Singh. 14. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27th February, 2018 passed by the learned ASJ, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking setting aside of the same. PLEADINGS BEFORE THIS COURT 15. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: “…A. Because the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court is contrary to law and facts on record.

B. Because the impugned order is base on conjectures and surmises and against the settled principles of law. Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 6 of 47

C. Because the Learned Sessions Court wrongly and erroneously appreciated the fact that accused/Respondent was charged with another accused for the offence U/s. 3 & 4 MCOC Act. The said FIR was registered on 05.03.2013. After the completion of investigation chargesheet was filed before the competent court on 26.09.2013 and the case under MCOC Act arose out of the FIR No. 69/2007 and the case was the genesis for registration of FIR and MCOC Act against the accused/Respondent herein.

Prosecution moved an application U/s. 323 Cr. PC on 10.10.2013 to club the matter with FIR No. 0/2013 U/s. 3 & 4 MCOC Act before Ld. CMM, New Delhi on the ground of connectivity, this was dismissed on 27.11.2013 by the Learned CMM. Prosecution challenged the said order by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before Ld. ASJ, New Delhi which was allowed by order dated 09.01.2014 and both the case w ere clubbed together and the present case was transferred to the Learned ASJ Court which was dealt with the MCOC Act cases. After that accused/Respondent was discharged for offences under MCOC Act vide order dated 04.02.2014 and the present case was returned to the Learned CMMfor trial.

***

D. Because the Learned Sessions Court wrongly and erroneously did not appreciate the fact that during investigation, several documents pertaining to accused/Respondent Brijesh Singh were recovered i.e. regarding several bank account, arms licence and various companies accounts wherein he has been shown as Arun Kumar to conceal his identity. The recovered documents are one PAN Card, Arms licence No. 1873-3/1983 in the name of Brijesh Singh as false address of R/o Asarganj, P.S. Tatarpur, District Munger, Bihar one passport bearing No. F 4615310 and various bank accounts at different cities of Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 7 of 47

Kolkata, Bhubaneshwar, Varanasi which are as follows:

*** E. Because, Ld. Sessions Court wrongly and erroneously did not appreciate the fact that another accused Tribhuvan Singh was arrested in the present case after five years of registration of FIR due to said reasons and annual Income Tax Return of Sanjana Viniyog Pvt. Ltd., in which both the accused were directors was also recovered, and a case was registered at PS Laxmi Nagar, District Khurd and after the arrest and recovery of forged documents, charge sheet was filed.

F. Because the Ld. Sessions Court wrongly and erroneously did not appreciate the fact that during further investigation, several documents pertaining to another accused Tribhuvan Singh regarding several Bank accounts, driving license and various bank accoimts, driving license and various bank accounts wherein he has been shown as Pawan Kumar Singh to conceal his identity were recovered i.e. Driving Licence No. 10264/0K/06 fake passport No. 1552516 (File No. 001575/07)-07 PAN Card, various Bank accounts the details of which are as follows:

***

G. Because, Ld. Sessions Judge wrongly and erroneously did not appreciate the fact that the involvement of accused persons in as many as 13 heinous nature of cases and for the purpose of committing heinous offences accused Brijesh Singh committed several illegal transactions and committed forgery by assuming fictitious identity in the name of Arun Kumar Singh and on the basis of fake identity he not only got issued driving licence and also opened several bank accounts in various Bank and also issued arms licence, PAN Card and FSL has confirmed that photograph and signatures of the document matched with the accused Brijesh Singh. The said documents were prepared by accused/Respondent and by another accused Tribhuvan Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 8 of 47

Singh for the purpose of hiding their true identity so that even after commission of offence in the present case both the accused persons entered into a conspiracy and created false documents and made a threatening calls to the complainant.

***

K. Because, the Ld. Session court wrongly and erroneously did not follow the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of cases as given hereinunder:

(i) Union of India Vs. Prafulla reported as 1979 SC 366 AIR; (ii) State of Maharashtra &Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa & Ors. reported in 1996 (4) SCC 659; (iii) Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI (2010)9 SCC 368; (iv) State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2003 II AD(Crl.) SC 69 and Subhandra Vs. State 1996 665...”

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 9 of 47

***

***

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 10 of 47

foUowing documents:-

i) PAN card in the name of Arun Singh,

ii) Motor Driving License in the name of Arun Singh,

iii) Incorporation of two companies where Accused No.l has impersonated himself as Arun Singh and became Director in the said name,

iv) Income Tax Returns in the name of said Arun Singh were alleged to be forged/fabricated by the Respondent V Brijesh Singh, and

v) Bank accounts and investment in real estate in the name of Arun Singh which were alleged to be forged/fabricated by the Respondent Brijesh Singh have not been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

***

Section 178 of Cr.P.C envisages four situations

i) when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed,

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 11 of 47

commission of offence.

***

Section 219, 220, 221 and 223 are exceptions to the general rule prescribed in Section 218. Under certain circumstances, an accused can be tried for more than one offence in the same trial in order to avoid multiplicity of trials. These circumstances are mentioned in Section 219 to 221 and 223 of Cr.P.C.

Section 219 of Cr.P.C allows for trial of three offences committed within a span of twelve months. In the instant case, Section 219 has no application.

Section 220 of Cr.P.C allows for trial of one series of act if they are so connected together as to form the same transaction. To constitute same transaction, the series of acts alleged against the accused must be connected together in some way. For instance, by proximity of time, unity of place, unity or community of purpose or design and continuity of action. The main test must really be continuity of action. In the present case, there is no connection whatsoever between the offence of alleged threats amounting to criminal intimidation punishable u/s 506 and demands of extortion punishable u/s 385 and / or 387 of I.P.C to Sudhir Singh with the offence of obtaining fake identity and preparing and using false documents. Certainly, it is not the case of the prosecution that the Respondent had obtained fake identity, prepared false documents, and used the same for the purposes of threatening Sudhir Singh. The alleged offence with regard to Sudhir Singh has nothing to do with the aforesaid act of obtaining fake identity, preparing false documents, and using the same which are punishable u/s 419, 468 and 471 of IPG. They are two distinct and different acts and therefore, the charge under these Sections viz. 419, 468 and 471 of IPG cannot be tried together with the charge u/s 385 / 387 and 506(11) of LP.G. There is no connection Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 12 of 47

whatsoever between the alleged offence of Section 419, 468 and 471 of I.P.G with the alleged complaint of Sudhir Singh, and therefore, even by virtue of Section 220 of Gr.P.G, the said charges cannot be tried along with Section 385, 387 and 506(11) of IPG as they have not been committed in the course of same transaction.

***

***

And further there is no provision in Gr.P.G where an accused can be tried for charges u/s 419, 468 and 471 of IPG, which have been admittedly not committed within the jurisdiction of this HonTale Court.

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 13 of 47

case is not supported by any evidence let alone prima facie evidence. ***

***

1-4 That the contents of the corresponding paras of the reply filed by the Respondent are admitted to the extent of the matter of record whereas the rest is denied. 5 That the contents of the corresponding paras of the Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 14 of 47

reply filed by the Respondent are admitted to the extent of the matter of record whereas the rest is denied. 6(a)- G) That the content of the corresponding paras are admitted to the extent of the matter of record whereas the rest is denied. The subject matter of FIR No. 22/08 u/s 25/27 Arms Act, PS Laxmi Nagar, Distt. Khurd, Orisa is entirely different from the present case. The forged documents alleged to be recovered in that case are not the same as the ones recovered in the present case. 7-8 That the contents of the corresponding para are a matter of record and needs no reply

REPLY TO SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 9. That the contents of the corresponding para stating that the charge under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 of I.P.C. ought not to have been added to the present crime as the alleged crime is not committed either in the teiTitorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court or during the course of same transaction is false, misleading, untenable in the eyes of law and hence vehemently denied. It is respectfully submitted that the Complainant namely Sudhir Kumar in the present case received a threatening call from the Respondent herein while the Complainant was in Delhi. Being threatened by the said call an FIR No.69/2007 was registered at Special Cell, Delhi which led the Investigation Authorities to discover certain incriminating documents against the accused The recovered documents from the accused indicatedthe modus operandi adopted by the accused person(s) through which threatening calls to the Complainant by the accused. That it is respectfully submitted that the accused persons had threatened the Complainant, who was in Delhi when such call was received. Further it is submitted that the charges Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 15 of 47

mentioned in the corresponding paragraph are part of the same transaction to the present crime and hence this Court has jurisdiction to try the same. The offence alleged against the accused is a complete offence by itself and the same is to be enquired into and tired by the Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. 10- 11 That the contents of the corresponding paragraphs are denied in its entirety. It is respectfully submitted that the Complainant was not directly involved in the coal business, but acted as a broker between the carrier and the market and hence there are no such documents to show that the Complainant was in coal business, his involvement was in marginal capacity. 12 That the contents of the corresponding para are incorrect and misleading, hence denied in its entirety subject to the matter of records. The disclosure of Raju Tiwari is not relevant for proving the present crime of extortion committed by the petitioner against the complainant. Reference to Raju Tiwari is relevant to set out the background of the case. 13 That the contents of the corresponding paras are misleading and hence denied 14 That the contents of the corresponding paras are misleading in nature and hence denied in its entirety. It is most respectfully submitted that Gajendra Singh was the maternal uncle to the Complainant; though it is admitted that the Complainant was not a witness to Gajendra Singh's murder case it is important to know that the Complainant played an active role in harnessing justice for his demised maternal uncle. The fact relating to Gajendra Singh's murder case are referred to in the petition in order to give the background circumstances prevailing at the time of registration of the FIR herein and the fact that the petitioner faced genuine risk of harm from the respondent.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 16 of 47

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 17 of 47

questioned handwriting and signatures on the recovered documents, such documents pertained to PAN, Driving License and Bank Account. These documents further indicated toward modus operandi adopted by the accused persons to make threatening calls and concealing their identities in order to remain untraced. The averment in the corresponding paragraph that since forgery and recovery of forged documents are not part of the same transaction, and Thereofre barring the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is untenable is a misplaced contention because all of the above transactions are parts of one common transaction as held vide order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Ld. MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. 19 It is denied that the respondent has never been in Delhi or that he has never represented himself to be Amn Singh within the jurisdiction of the Delhi. 20- 21 That the contents of the corresponding para are false, misleading, untrue and hence denied in its entirety. It is respectfully submitted that the answer to the averments made in the corresponding para has already been dealt with in the above replies and hence the same has not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Documents by which the respondent represent himself as Arun Singh are of such a nature that they can be used in all of India. 22 That the contents of the corresponding para are false, misleading, untrue and hence denied in its entirety. It is most respectfully submitted that another accused Tribhuvan Singh was arrested in the present case after five years of registration of FIR due to said reasons and annual Income Tax Returns of SanjanaViniyog Pvt. Ltd., in which both the accused were directors was also recovered, and a case was registered at PS Laxmi Nagar, District Khurdi and after the arrest and recovery of forged documents, charge sheet was filed Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 18 of 47

23 That the contents of the corresponding para are false, misleading, untrue and hence denied in its entirety. It is respectfully submitted that sections are added as per the evidence surfaced during the investigation 24 That the contents of the corresponding para are matter of record needs no reply. 25 It is denied that the content of final report dated 18/08/17 in any manner indicate that the case against the respondent is baseless and false. 26 That the contents of the corresponding para are matter of record whereas, it is most respectfully submitted that the Criminal Appeal No. 1750/2017 filed by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose out of FIR No. 10/2013 under Section 3 & 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. It is pertinent to note that the accused was discharged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only in MCQC Act and not in the present case in which the Complainant filed the complaint by the name of the accused Respondent herein with the name of another accused Tribhuvan Singh. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent herein is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court by quoting specific portions out of context from the order of discharge passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1750/2017. 27 That the contents of the corresponding para are matterof record hence needs no reply 28 That the contents of the corresponding para are misleading, untrue and hence denied. 29- 31 That the contents of the corresponding para are misleading, untrue and hence denied. It is most respectfully submitted that the contentions regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Courts of Delhi has already been dealt with in the replies to the above mentioned paragraphs and hence not repeated herein Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 19 of 47

for the sake of brevity. Further the complainant takes leave to refer to the grounds on which the impugned order of the Ld. ASJ have been assailed as stated in the petition in response to this para. 32 That the contents of the corresponding para are admitted to the extent there are in keeping with the contents of the petition, whereas rest of the contents in the corresponding paras arevehemently denied. 33- 35 That the contents of the corresponding para are misleading, incorrect and hence denied in its entirety. It is most respectfully submitted that the contentions regarding territorial jurisdiction have already been dealt with in the replies to the above mentioned paragraphs as well as the grounds contained in the petition and hence not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. 36 That the contents of the corresponding para are misleading and hence denied in its entirety. It is submitted that the present case attracts jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court in view of relevant provisions under Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C where it is uncertain that in which of the several areas the offence was committed and hence, the Courts of Delhi have the jurisdiction to try the instant matter. 37 That the contents of the corresponding para are misleading and hence denied in its entirety. It is contended in the corresponding para that there is no connection whatsoever between the offence of alleged threats amounting to criminal intimidation punishable u/s 506 and demands of extortion punishable u/s 385, 387 IPC to the Complainant with the offence of obtaining fake identity/ preparing and using false documents. In this respect, it is submitted that though criminal intimidation been committed by the Respondent using his true identity, the same has been consequently covered up by the Respondent using fictitious identity which enabled the Respondent to Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 20 of 47

remain untraced.Hence a conclusion can be reached that the offences u/s 419,468, 471 IPC and charge u/s 385/387 and 506 (ii) IPC are part of the same transaction as clearly they are inter-related to each other. 38- 39 That the contents of the corresponding paras are untenable at this stage of the proceeding and hence, denied. 4-58 That the contents of the corresponding para are baseless, misleading, misconceived and hence denied. It is submitted that the issues pertaining to the corresponding paragraphs have already been dealt with in the paragraphs above and in the grounds on the basis of which impugned order of the Ld. ASJ have been assailed as contained in the petition and hence not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 21 of 47

iii. No complaint filed ever with the Varanasi Police. Complainant resident of Varanasi and respondent also resident ofVaranasi. iv. Location of the PCO was never established from where thealleged extortion was made. v. No statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded of PCO Owner (Riyaz). vi. No evidence that respondent has any connection with the PCO Owner (Riyaz). vii CDR of the PCO Owner was never obtained by the Investigating Agency. viii. Only one single call is alleged to be made by the respondent. ix. No follow up call is alleged to be made by the respondent either by himself or any one on behalf of the respondent. No allegation of any delivery of any property or valuable security by the complainant post receiving of the alleged extortion call.No evidence submitted by the complainant with the IO that he actually travelled to Delhi on 28,08.2007 in the form of any Train or Flight tickets or he travelled via road. *** 8. Time and again Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court observed that in a case if there can be no possibility of any conviction on the basis of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, then the Ld Trial Court is within its right to discharge the accused from all the charges. The respondent case categorically falls in the same category…”

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 22 of 47

SUBMISSIONS (on behalf of the petitioner) 19. Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned APP appearing on behalf of the petitioner-State submitted that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the entire fact and circumstances of the case and thus, the same is liable to be set aside. 20. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the law and facts on record as the same is based on conjectures and surmises. It is submitted that the learned ASJ failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent was charged alongwith another accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter “MCOCA”) in FIR no. 10/2013. 21. It is submitted that the said FIR no. 10/2013 was registered on 5th March, 2013 and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court concerned on 26th September, 2013, and the case under MCOCA arose out of the FIR no. 69/2007 following which the said case became the genesis for the registration of FIR no. 10/2013 under the MCOCA against the respondent herein. 22. It is submitted that in the instant FIR, the prosecution had moved an application under Section 323 of the CrPC on 10th October, 2013 to club the instant FIR, i.e., FIR no. 69/2007 with FIR no. 10/2013 on the ground that both the FIRs are against the common accused, and the said application was dismissed by the Court concerned on 27th November, 2013. 23. It is further submitted that pursuant to the above, the prosecution challenged the order dated 27th November, 2013 by way of a revision Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 23 of 47

petition, which was allowed vide order dated 9th January, 2014 and both the cases were clubbed together and the present case was transferred to the Court concerned. Thereafter, the accused respondent was discharged for the offences under MCOCA vide order dated 4th February, 2014 and the present case was returned to the learned Trial Court for further adjudication. 24. It is submitted that the aforesaid order of discharge was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal no. 358/2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 16th May, 2014. The said order was again challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no. 1750/2017 which was dismissed vide order dated 9th October, 2017. It is submitted that the respondent accused was discharged only with respect to the offences punishable under the MCOCA and not in the present FIR in which the instant complainant had made specific allegations against the accused respondent along with the co-accused namely Mr. Tribhuvan Singh. Moreover, in the instant FIR, the complainant had mentioned specific mobile number belonging to the accused and the call details of the same are on record. 25. It is submitted that the documents such as one PAN card, arms license no. 1873-3/1983 in the name of Mr. Brijesh Singh having false address of „Asarganj, PS Tatapur, District Munger, Bihar‟, one passport bearing no. F4615310 and various bank accounts at different cities such as Kolkata, Bhubaneswar and Varanasi were recovered from the respondent which led to the registration of a case at Police Station – Laxmi Nagar, District Khurd, Odisha. It is further submitted that learned ASJ erred in not appreciating the fact that during the investigation, Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 24 of 47

several documents pertaining to the respondent accused were recovered with regard to several bank accounts, arms license and various company accounts wherein he has been shown as Mr. Arun Kumar to conceal his identity. 26. It is submitted that the learned ASJ failed to appreciate that during further investigation, several documents pertaining to another accused Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, regarding several bank accounts, driving license and fake passport were recovered in the name of one Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh. Furthermore, the documents wherein the name Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh was mentioned as director of various companies were also recovered. 27. It is further submitted that the aforesaid documents were prepared by the respondent accused and co-accused Mr. Tribhuvan Singh to hide their true identity to commit the offences in the present case by entering into a conspiracy and making threatening calls to the complainant. 28. It is submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned ASJ observed that the STD/PCO Booth, from which the phone call was made by the accused persons is situated at Varanasi and no owner of the said STD Booth has been called and interrogated as a witness. It is further submitted that this observation is not legally tenable at the stage of framing charge and the same might be the relevant fact at the time of evidence but not at the stage of charge when there is sufficient material on record to show that the complainant has named both the accused persons and also gave his own mobile number as well as the phone number from which he received the threatening calls. 29. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the instant Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 25 of 47

petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for. (on behalf of the respondent) 30. Per Contra, Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent accused vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 31. It is submitted that the learned ASJ did not commit any error of law while passing the impugned order as the same has been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances available on record. 32. It is submitted that there is no document on record to show that the complainant is in the coal business. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant‟s name is mentioned in the list of history sheeter of the Uttar Pradesh Government. It is further submitted that there is no document on record to show that the respondent was or is in the coal business and hence, there was simply no occasion or motive for the respondent to call the complainant to stop his coal business. 33. It is submitted that the complainant is not a witness in Gajendra Singh murder case. The complainant only wrote down the application on behalf of one Mr. Sanjiv Singh. Further, since the complainant was not a witness in Gajendra Singh murder case, there was no occasion for the respondent to call the complainant to file any affidavit. 34. It is submitted that there is no material to show impersonation in the name of Mr. Arun Singh by the respondent at Delhi and it is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent has deceived anyone within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by disclosing his identity as Mr. Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 26 of 47

Arun Singh. Further, it is also not the case of the prosecution that the respondent had impersonated himself as Mr. Arun Singh in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, it is not even the case of the complainant that he was threatened in the name of Mr. Arun Singh and therefore, this Court cannot try the respondent for the offence under Section 419 of the IPC in the present FIR. 35. It is submitted that the PAN card in the name of Mr. Arun Singh has been procured from UTI Technologies, Calcutta which is used for filing Annual Returns of the companies, opening and operating bank accounts, and for acquiring real estate in the State of Orissa, and it is only the Courts at Calcutta or at Orissa which would have jurisdiction to try respondent for the said offence. Further, it is the case of the prosecution itself that one Mr. Rajesh Khatri, who assisted the respondent herein in creating the aforementioned false documents, is being tried for Sections 419, 468 and 216 of the IPC. 36. It is submitted that qua two accused namely Mr. Deepak Kumar and Mr. Sanjay Pratap Singh, final report was filed and the Court concerned accepted the same vide order dated 18th August, 2017. This further fortifies the case of the respondent that the entire allegation alleged by the complainant is baseless and false. 37. It is submitted that the learned ASJ correctly held that a Court has no power to try an accused for an offence committed wholly outside the limits of its jurisdiction. It is submitted that in the present case, there is no connection whatsoever between the offence of alleged threats amounting to criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 of the IPC and extortion punishable under Section 385/387 of the IPC with the offence Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 27 of 47

of obtaining, preparing and using fake identity documents. 38. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the respondent had obtained fake identity, prepared false documents, and used the same for the purposes of threatening the complainant. The alleged offence with regard to the complainant has nothing to do with the aforesaid act of obtaining fake identity, preparing false documents and using the same. They are two distinct acts, and therefore, cannot be tried together. 39. It is submitted that the learned ASJ held that an extortion call was made from mobile number 9889388203 to the mobile number of the complainant, Mr. Sudhir Singh on 28th August, 2007. This allegation, which is the fundamental in the present case, is not supported by any evidence let alone prima facie evidence. 40. It is submitted that the learned ASJ has correctly found that the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC by Mr. Reyaz‟s, who runs the STD booth and owns the phone number 9889388203, from which the alleged call was made to the complainant, was never examined during the course of the investigation. 41. It is submitted that it is also the case of the prosecution, as evident from the submissions of the Public Prosecutor in proceedings held on 5th June, 2013, that the STD booth, from where the alleged call was made, has not been located. The sequitur of the above is that the prosecution has not even prima facie shown that a call was made by the respondent or Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, let alone a threatening call. 42. It is submitted that the learned ASJ correctly held that the failure of the prosecution to either examine Mr. Reyaz, not making him a witness in Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 28 of 47

the list of witnesses, or exhibiting the CDR, which has admittedly been obtained, can only lead to the inference that the prosecution has failed to show that a call was made by the respondent or Mr. Tribhuvan Singh to the complainant. 43. It is submitted that the learned ASJ has correctly held that the ingredients of Sections 384 and 387 of the IPC require a threat and action on the threat, i.e., a person must be put in fear of injury and that fear must induce that person to deliver property or valuable property. In the present case, there is no evidence of a threat, and admittedly, there is no delivery of any property or valuable security. 44. It is submitted that it has been rightly observed that the conduct of the complainant shows that he was under no threat. The call has been alleged to be received on 28th August, 2007 at 7:15 PM. Thereafter, as per the complainant‟s CDR, he makes about 37 calls and pertinently, no call was made to a PCR or to the police. The complainant, in fact, had long conversations with the people as evident from the CDR. It is also submitted that on 29th August, 2007, the complainant purportedly makes this complaint after reaching Varanasi, and that too the complaint is made to the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police on 30th August, 2007. The falsity of the complaint is evident from the fact that while in Delhi, the complainant does not make any complaint, however, he makes it in Varanasi, which according to him is the home town of the respondent. 45. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 46. This Court has heard both the parties in detail, perused the material Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 29 of 47

available on record including the written submissions and the judgment relied upon by both the parties. 47. Before adverting to the merits of the instant case, this Court deems it appropriate to discuss the scope of revisional powers of this Court enshrined under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC (now Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS). 48. It is pertinent to mention that when a revision petition is filed before the High Court challenging an order passed in a previous revision petition decided by the Sessions Court, the scope of interference is even narrower. In State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that revisional powers should not be used to act as a second appellate forum, and interference is warranted only in cases where the order under challenge suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity, or results in a miscarriage of justice. The relevant paras are mentioned herein below: “21. In embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole evidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was totally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a revision under Section 397 CrPC. On behalf of the accused, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party i.e. Ram Briksh Singh v. Ambika Yadav [(2004) 7 SCC 665]. That was the case in which the High Court interfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the courts below. 22. The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 401 CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all

1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 30 of 47

powers of an appellate court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 CrPC confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be,“for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court”.It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or the Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of an appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power.”

2 2024 INSC 642 3 (2012) 9 SCC 460 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 31 of 47

scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.”…” 50. In the present case, as the learned Sessions Court has already exercised its revisional jurisdiction and has examined the sufficiency of evidence and legal infirmities in the framing of charges, this Court must be cautious in interfering unless there is a glaring defect or miscarriage of justice apparent on the face of the record. 51. In the preceding paragraphs, this Court has discussed the powers of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. Now this Court shall discuss the principles of framing of charges against an accused and what needs to be seen from the record to frame a particular charge. With respect to the same, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohanlal Soni4 held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Courts are only required to evaluate the material on record to solely determine whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. The relevant paragraph of the same is as under: “..The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of

4 (2000) 6 SCC 338 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 32 of 47

framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused…”

5 (2014) 3 SCC 92 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 33 of 47

“..15. I have gone through the record as well as the impugned order. My order shall deal with the offences of cheating and forgery u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 474 IPG with respect to which charge has been framed before coming to offence of extortion. It is admitted case of prosecution that the forged documents were found from the possession of the petitioner at the time of his arrest in Orrisa. These forged documents had no connection with the offence of extortion with respect to which original complaint was filed in Delhi. In any event it is seen that the court at New Delhi does not have territorial jurisdiction with respect to the; offences committed at Orissa. It is also pertinent to mention here that a case was already registered under the provisions of forgery and in personation at PS Khurd, Orissa and the trial with respect to such forged documents is already pending before the local trial court at Orissa. Petitioner cannot be charged for the same offence twice as that will be in violation of the constitutional right guarranted under Article-20 of the Constitution (double jeopardy). It is also seen that the original extortion call has no linkage with the forged documents and to come to the conclusion that accused persons were hiding their identity after making extortion call as the same shall amount to presuming that the extortion calls were made by the petitioner specially in view of the fact that no evidence has been collected by the 10 to connect the petitioner with the extortion call which I shall explain in the subsequent paras which dealing with the case of extortion.

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 34 of 47

prosecution agency had also chargesheeted the petitioner for offence under provisions of MCOCA. It is seen that learned ASJ while dealing with the MCOCA case discharged the petitioner from the MCOCA case. The said order was challenged by the prosecution before Hon'ble High Court but the order of learned ASJ was upheld and State challenged the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Criminal Appeal No. 1750/2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5497/2015, State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Brijesh Singh Arun Kumar & Anr." before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed with the following observations : "FIR No. 69/2007 was registered on the basis of information given by one Sudhir Singh, who is admittedly a resident of plot no. 103, Saket Nagar, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. He is a politician and a businessman and when he was on a trip to Delhi, he was threatened by the respondents due to their business rivalry. Several facts pertaining to the iliegal activities of the respondents in Uttar Pradesh have been mentioned in the FIR. Sudhir Singh complained of extortion by the respondents for payment of Rs. 50 lakhs as protection money. During the course of investigation, it was found that the call that was made on the mobile phone of Sudhir Singh was from a PCO at Varanasi. It appears from a close reading of the FIR and the chargesheet in FIR No. 69/2007, that there as no criminal activity pertaining to organized crime within the territory of Delhi and the complaint was filed by the informant at Delhi only for the purpose of invoking MCOCA………… After making enquiries with the authorities concerned, Mr. Luthra fairly submitted that the respondents are not in possession of any property in Delhi. As there is no organized crime committee by the respondents within the territory of Delhi, there is no cause of action for initiation of proceedings under MCOCA.” Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 35 of 47

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 36 of 47

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 37 of 47

discharging of co-accused persons Deepak and Sanjay Pratap Singh by learned CMM, New Delhi, wherein it was observed that there is no new evidence against both the co- accused persons except the disclosure statement of other co- accused persons which is not admissible in the eyes of law. In the said order discharging the co-accused, learned CMM further observed that investigating agency concluded that there is no evidence to connect the co-accused Deepak and Sanjay Pratap Singh with the concerned offence. Learned CMM further recorded that IO submitted that there was no phone call or call details by the complainant to the petitioner. It was also observed by learned CMM that as per report of the IO, the allegations made in the complaint in the FIR were materially incorrect and could not be corroborated by the 10 and therefore, 10 filed closure report against the co-accused persons on the basis of same complaint, which was accepted by learned CMM stating that there is no reason or material to differ from the conclusion of the IO. 21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order against accused Brijesh Singh is not a speaking order and is not passed upon considering the evidence collected by the investigating agency and therefore, it suffers from infirmity and illegality. Impugned order with respect to Brijesh Singh is therefore, set aside. Accused/ petitioner Brijesh Singh is discharged of the offences for which he has been charged with in the case FIR No. 69/07, PS Special Cell Accused/petitioner is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. Revision petition stands allowed accordingly…” 56. Upon perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned order, it is made out that the same pertains to a revision petition filed by the accused/respondent herein, challenging the charges framed against him under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 384, 120-B, and 34 of the Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 38 of 47

IPC. 57. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to address each charge individually. 58. The order of the learned ASJ meticulously examines the material available and highlights significant inconsistencies in the prosecution‟s version. 59. The learned ASJ observed that the complainant did not file an immediate report after receiving the alleged threatening call, nor did he approach the local police or emergency services in Delhi or Varanasi. Instead, he decided to file the complaint two days later before the Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell, New Delhi, bypassing the regular procedure, which raises doubts regarding the authenticity of the allegations. 60. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused as the caller of the alleged extortion call by failing to obtain conclusive CDR or witness testimony linking the accused to the alleged call. The investigative agency could not trace the PCO from which the call was allegedly made, nor was any independent witness examined to corroborate the complainant‟s claims. Additionally, it was observed that the complainant made several calls after the alleged threat but did not report the matter to the police at the earliest opportunity, further undermining the credibility of the allegations. 61. In the present case, the learned ASJ has rightly observed that the absence of supporting evidence, such as forensic analysis of the call, the complainant‟s conduct in delaying the complaint, and the lack of identification of the alleged PCO, create serious doubts regarding the Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 39 of 47

veracity of the prosecution‟s case. 62. The complainant‟s allegations are primarily based on an alleged telephone call demanding money. However, as noted in the impugned order, no documentary or independent evidence has been adduced to demonstrate that any money was actually delivered to the accused as a consequence of such inducement. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide any financial records, transaction details, or corroborative statements to substantiate the claim that the complainant parted with any property due to fraudulent misrepresentation. 63. In the present case, the absence of credible evidence to establish dishonest inducement and the absence of any actual financial loss to the complainant indicate that the allegations are not substantiated and thus, the learned ASJ has correctly observed that the prosecution has failed to link the accused to any act that would fulfill the criteria of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the IPC. 64. Now adverting to the charge framed under Section 467 of the IPC. Section 467 of the IPC pertains to the forgery of valuable security, will, or any document that purports to confer authority to receive money or valuable property. 65. In order to constitute an offence under the said provision, the prosecution must establish that the accused forged a document intending for it to be used as genuine to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. However, the learned ASJ, in the impugned order, has rightly observed that none of the alleged forged documents were either prepared or used within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. 66. Further, the prosecution itself admits that the forged documents Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 40 of 47

were recovered from the accused in the state of Odisha at the time of his arrest. Additionally, there is no evidence to show that these documents were intended to be used within Delhi or that they were instrumental in the alleged extortion attempt. As such, the absence of territorial jurisdiction is a significant factor that renders the charge under Section 467 of the IPC unsustainable. 67. Coming to the charge framed under Section 468 of the IPC, the said provision deals with forgery committed with the intent to cheat. 68. In the matter at hand, this Court, upon perusal of the material available on record, has observed that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused, by using the allegedly forged documents, deceived any individual or entity within the jurisdiction of Delhi. In the absence of any proof of fraudulent use of the documents within the jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that the learned ASJ has correctly held that the charge under Section 468 of the IPC cannot be sustained against the respondent in light of the specific allegations made in the present complaint. 69. Moving further, Section 471 of the IPC pertains to using a forged document, knowing it to be forged. The prosecution's case rests primarily on the recovery of the alleged documents from the accused at the time of his arrest in Odisha. However, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the accused used these documents within the jurisdiction of Delhi to cause wrongful gain or loss. The prosecution has not produced any witness or transactional evidence to substantiate the claim that the accused knowingly used forged documents to defraud any person within Delhi. Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 41 of 47

6 (2009) 8 SCC 751 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 42 of 47

7 (2015) 7 SCC 423 8 (2002) 2 SCC 56 Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 43 of 47

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 44 of 47

„protection money‟ on 28th August, 2007 from the accused herein and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh (co-accused). 84. However, this Court cannot ignore the admitted position of fact that the complainant did not make any efforts to report the call immediately to the local police, either in Delhi or in Varanasi and instead the complainant proceeded to file a complaint in Delhi two days later before the Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Cell. This Court finds that this delay and choice of jurisdiction is unusual which raises serious doubts about the complaint‟s credibility. 85. This Court also notes that during the investigation, no evidence was found to link the accused to the extortion call and the same is apparent from the bare reading of the material placed on record including the chargesheet dated 8th October, 2007. 86. It is observed that the alleged PCO, from where the call originated could not be located, and the person named Mr. Riyaz, purportedly associated with the PCO, was neither prosecuted nor made a witness. 87. Additionally, the prosecution has clearly failed to obtain and place on record the call detail records or voice analysis as evidence to establish the respondent‟s involvement which fact has also been noted by the learned ASJ in the impugned order. 88. It will not be out of place to mention that despite the allegation of a threat call, no property or valuable security was delivered by the complainant, which is one of the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of extortion, thereby, undermining the allegation of extortion made against the respondent. 89. This Court has also gone through the case history, including the Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 45 of 47

Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s observations in the Criminal Appeal no. 1750/2017 involving the accused herein. It had been determined by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that there was no organized criminal activity within Delhi, and the complaint appeared to have been filed in Delhi solely to invoke MCOCA. This earlier finding, coupled with the lack of evidence connecting the respondent to the extortion allegations was taken into consideration by the learned ASJ while concluding that there was insufficient material to frame charges against him. 90. It is further observed that co-accused persons namely Mr. Deepak and Mr. Sanjay, were discharged for lack of evidence, and no new evidence was brought against the respondent herein beyond their disclosure statements, which are inadmissible in the present case. Therefore, the learned ASJ rightly held that there cannot be different standards of evidence for the co-accused persons and the respondent herein in the same case. 91. This Court is of the view that the learned ASJ correctly observed that the offences of forgery and impersonation were distinct and unrelated to the extortion allegations. 92. It has been rightly observed in the impugned order that the forged documents, recovered in Odisha, bore no connection to the alleged extortion call made to the complainant. With regard to the same, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution‟s attempt to link these two separate incidents was speculative and unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, a parallel case involving the forged documents was already pending trial in Odisha, therefore, subjecting the respondent against the forgery offences before the Court in Delhi is clearly not in Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 46 of 47

accordance with the law as the Delhi Court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offences of forgery and extortion. Thus, it has been rightly held by the learned ASJ that the petitioner could not be tried for the same offence twice, being contrary to the principles enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. 93. Moreover, the learned ASJ also rightly concluded that the forged documents were recovered in Odisha, and the extortion call was made from a PCO in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. No part of the alleged criminal activities occurred in Delhi, except for the complainant filing the complaint there. It is to be noted that the learned ASJ correctly held that filing the complaint in Delhi appears to be a deliberate attempt to invoke MCOCA jurisdiction, a conclusion supported by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in earlier proceedings involving the respondent. 94. This Court is of the considered view that the investigating officer failed to collect crucial evidence, such as Call Detail Records, voice spectrography analysis, or testimony from witnesses who could corroborate the extortion call‟s origin. Without such evidence, the prosecution‟s case rested on conjecture rather than substantive proof. Thus, the learned ASJ rightly concluded that mere suspicion, without grave suspicion backed by corroborative evidence, could not justify framing charges. 95. The aforesaid discussions on law and facts shows that the learned ASJ‟s order in discharging the respondent Mr. Brijesh Singh from the charges is well-founded, both factually and legally and there is no force in the propositions put forth by the petitioner herein.

Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified

CRL.REV.P. 440/2018

Page 47 of 47

CONCLUSION 96. This Court is of the view that the learned ASJ has meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal framework in setting aside the charges against the respondent herein. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order wherein the learned ASJ has discussed the entire facts and circumstances, and there is no illegality of any kind thereto. 97. In view of the foregoing discussions on facts and law, this Court does not find any force in the submissions of the petitioner and thus, the impugned order dated 27th February, 2018, qua the discharge of the respondent, passed by the learned ASJ – 02 (FTC), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Rev no. 103/2017 arising out of the FIR no. 69/2007 registered at Police Station – Special Cell for offences punishable under Sections 387/420/467/468/471/506 of the IPC is, hereby, upheld. 98. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed along with the pending applications, if any. 99. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J

MARCH 26, 2025 NA/ryp/mk Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN KUMAR BABBAR Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:20:18 Signature Not Verified