9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there appears to be no manifestly evident difference in the questioned and the admitted signatures for which recourse is required for the non-applicant to be hauled-up for the offences under Section 463 or 471 of the IPC. As noted supra, it is also not the argument of the petitioner that any benefit has occurred to Naveen Gupta or the corresponding loss has occurred to the opposing party. In such a situation, no case for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.PC is made out. The intent of fraud on the part of Naveen Gupta is clearly not made out. This appeal is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Being a wastage of its precious time, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. - CO.A(SB) 101/2012 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the paper book); further submission being that the impugned order has also noticed this serious mis-matching in the signatures but had thereafter proceeded to dismiss the application of the petitioner for no reason whatsoever; a fraud has been committed upon the Court as Naveen Gupta had not signed the aforenoted documents; cognizance of this offence should have been taken by the CLB and proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.PC should have been initiated against him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 340 of the Cr.PC and the procedure as contained under Section 195 of the Code; submission being that the offence had been committed by Naveen Gupta under Section 463 read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the respondent which is to the effect that the signatures of a person do vary at different points of time which submission is not out of context. 10. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any unfair advantage or a dishonest gain has been made by the petitioner in not deliberately appending his signatures on the aforenote documents. The offences, complained of by the petitioner, which are under Sections 463 and 471 of the IPC necessary entail a mensrea; in the absence of an intent to defraud the offence is not made out. 11. Reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported as AIR 1963 SC 1572 Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration is relevant in this context. This was a case wherein on an insu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be useful for income-tax purposes is not of any relevance in the present case, for one reason, the said owner did not say so in his evidence and for the other, it was not indicated in the charge or in the evidence. In the charge framed, she was alleged to have defrauded the insurance company and the only evidence given was that if it was disclosed that Nalini was a minor, the insurance company might not have paid the money. But as we have pointed out earlier, the entire transaction was that of Dr. Vimla and it was only put through in the name of her made minor daughter for reasons best known to herself. On the evidence as disclosed, neither was she benefited nor the insurance company incurred loss in any sense of the term. 12. Apart fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
