Mohan Kukreja vs State on 3 December, 2015

1. Instant revision petitions have been preferred by the

petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated

19.05.2007 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby they were

ordered to be charged for commission of offences under Sections

420/468/471/120B IPC. The petitions are contested by the respondents. I

have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.

2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that during arguments,

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, stated that

petitioners have opted not to challenge the impugned order under Section

471 IPC. Arguments were restricted / confined to challenge the

correctness of the charges under Sections 420/468/120B IPC. Learned

Senior Counsel would urge that ingredient of Sections 415 IPC and 468

IPC are not attracted in the instant case. There was no „representation‟

made by the petitioners to respondents No.2 & 3 and no „property‟

whatsoever was delivered by them pursuant to that. Merely because of

alleged forgery of the documents i.e. Retirement Deed and Receipts, it

cannot be inferred that the petitioners were liable for committing offences

under Sections 420/468 IPC too. The Retirement Deed dated 16.08.1990

Crl.R.P.374/2007 & connected matter. Page 2 of 15
came into existence after all the brothers agreed to divide their properties

in a family settlement. Subsequently, for ulterior motives, the respondents

backed out of the settlement and initiated criminal proceedings against the

petitioners though civil dispute between the parties was pending before

this Court. Learned counsel for Madan Kukreja urged that he had nothing

to do with the partnership-firm after 16.08.1990. He is victim of

circumstances. He urged that the Retirement Deed dated 16.08.1990 was

executed by all the partners pursuant to family settlement arrived at

among them. Reliance was placed on „Devendra and ors vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and anr.‟, 2009 (7) SCC 495 and „Fiza Developers and Inter-

Trade Pvt. Ltd. vs. AMCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. and anr.‟ 2009 (17) SCC 796.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply