In BAIL APPLN. 4304/2023-SC-‘Forging an order, may be of an alleged arbitrator, is a serious offence’:  Delhi HC junks anticipatory bail application of man who produced forged Order to claim possession of complainant’s car taken on loan
Justice Navin Chawla [11-01-2024]

Read Order: VIPUL JAIN v. STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, January 16, 2023: The Delhi High Court has refused to accept the plea of anticipatory bail of a man, allegedly working in a Finance Company, for producing forged document before the Police and demanding the possession of a car which the complainant had taken on loan.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla was considering an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The FIR, in question, was registered on a complaint filed by one Sh.Yogesh Sharma, who had stated that he had taken a loan from Kogta Finance Bank (Finance Company) for purchasing a Maruti Suzuki Eeco. He admitted that the loan was to be repaid in 24 instalments, however, he had paid only 4 of the said instalments. He alleged that he had stopped making payments of further instalments as proper receipt of payment made was not being issued to him.

The complainant stated that on 11.09.2023, three unknown persons from the Finance Company, one of whom the prosecution alleged was the petitioner herein, came along with a female and a male Police Officer, and started quarreling with the complainant and snatching the keys of the car from him. They were asked to produce the authority on the basis of which they were demanding the possession of the car, however, they did not have any order from any Court.

It was later discovered that they had produced a fabricated and forged paper purporting itself to be an order passed by an Arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding authorizing them to take the possession of the car.
 

The applicant contended that the allegations of misbehavior were made only against the two Police Officers and not against the applicant. It was further submitted that the complaint itself recorded that the persons who had visited the complainant were not in the possession of any Court order.It was the applicant’s case that instead of taking action against the erring Police Officers, he was being falsely involved in the present case.

On the contrary, the State Counsel submitted that it was the applicant who produced the alleged forged arbitration order to the Police, and an entry in this regard was also made in the diary. It was on that basis that the Police Officers were made to accompany the applicant to recover the car from the complainant.

The Bench opined that the complainant himself may have been guilty of not having paid the instalments in accordance with the Loan Agreement with the Finance Company, however, the recovery of the vehicle could only be made in accordance with the law.

“Forging an order, may be of an alleged arbitrator, is a serious offence”, the Bench said while further noting that the allegation against the applicant was that he had produced before the Police, a forged and fabricated Order purportedly passed in an arbitration proceeding.

Though the applicant denied this allegation, the Bench observed that it would require a detailed investigation by the police. “Even otherwise, as to who fabricated this purported order, needs to be investigated and ascertained. The presence of the applicant at the spot would also require investigation. This may require the applicant to be confronted with other witnesses”, the Bench said.

“Merely because no action has been taken against the erring Police Officers, in my view, the same cannot be a reason for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant at this stage of the investigation”, the Bench concluded while dismissing the petition.