NAVNEET SINGH vs. STATE

$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 21.10.2019 + CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 & CRL.M.A. 38774/2019-stay NAVNEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP for State SI Ashok Kumar, PS Chankya Puri CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT J U D G M E N T (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 38775/2019 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 & CRL.M.A. 38774/2019 1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set aside the impugned Order dated 28.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the Criminal Revision Petition bearing C.R. No. 458/2018, arising in the proceedings of F.I.R. No. 15/2016 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri under Sections 420/468/471/120- CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 1 of 11 B IPC, and to discharge the Petitioner of the aforesaid Offences. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.01.2016, a Complaint was lodged by the Assistant Regional Security Officer of the Embassy of United States of America, New Delhi, wherein it was interalia alleged that an individual named Harpreet Singh applied for a Non-Immigrant Visa at the US Embassy at New Delhi and along with the application, said Shri Harpreet Singh annexed various documents; Shri Harpreet Singh claimed himself to be the owner of a firm by the name of M/s P.K. Jutti Palace situated at Patiala, Punjab besides filing the documents in connection therewith; however in the interview with the Embassy Officials, Shri Harpreet Singh stated that he does not own or work for M/s P.K. Jutti Palace and all the documents submitted by him along with the Visa Application were fraudulent and that he paid a sum of ₹ .1,00,000/- to an individual named Navneet Singh for the said fraudulent documents and would pay an additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- if the Visa is approved. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that during the course of investigation, statements of certain witnesses were recorded including so called confessions extracted from the two accused persons namely, Shri Harpeet Singh and Shri Navneet Singh. On the completion of CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 2 of 11 investigation, a detailed Chargesheet was filed by the concerned police officials, whereafter cognizance was taken by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and accordingly, both the accused persons including the present Petitioner were summoned to appear before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 08.01.2018. 4. Thereafter, while the matter was adjourned for hearing on the point of charge vide Order dated 11.05.2018 and the matter was listed for the said purpose on 28.09.2018. However, the other co-accused person Harpreet Singh made an Application for plea bargaining under the relevant provisions, as a result whereof, the said Application was referred to the National Lok Adalat for 14.07.2018. On the said day i.e. 14.07.2018, the said Accused Shri Harpreet Singh admitted his guilt and sought the benefit of Chapter 21A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by way of plea bargaining and consequently, the National Lok Adalat after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, vide its Order dated 14.07.2018 itself, convicted the Accused Harpreet Singh under Sections 420/467/468/471/120- B IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him besides imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the present CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 3 of 11 Petitioner did not move such application for plea bargaining and he was not even aware about the status of the other co-accused having moved the Application for plea bargaining. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that when Petitioner came to know about the aforesaid proceedings of the National Lok Adalat as well as the Order passed on the Application of accused Harpreet Singh for plea bargaining and accordingly, the Petitioner herein filed an application for early hearing before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the point of charge and to prepone the date of 28.09.2018. However, the said Application was declined in view of the heavy pendency before the Court below. 7. The matter eventually came up for hearing before the Leaned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, on 28.09.2018 on the point of Charge and the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that no case is made out against the Petitioner on the basis of the materials accompanying the Chargesheet, particularly keeping in view the fact that the investigation conducted by the police authorities did not reveal any incriminating evidence against the Petitioner, therefore, no charge is liable to be framed for any of the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that, however, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the Petitioner CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 4 of 11 held otherwise and proceeded to frame charges against the Petitioner under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC vide Order dated 28.09.2018. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the same by filing Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C and the same was dismissed vide order 28.09.2019 by learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Special Judge while passing the impugned Order dated 28.09.2019 dismissing the Revision Petition of the Petitioner made a grave error while observing in the penultimate paragraph (unnumbered) thereof, that in view of the co-accused (Harpreet Singh) having pleaded guilty in the application seeking plea bargaining as well as the statement of the said co-accused before the American Embassy as mentioned in the written complaint, are sufficient to frame charges against the present Petitioner. The learned Judge below further went on to observe that the co-accused Harpreet Singh having pleaded guilty before the National Lok Adalat on 14.07.2018 is sufficient to attract Section 30 of the Evidence Act, which would bind the present petitioner. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Special Judge CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 5 of 11 therefore committed a grave illegality by ignoring and overlooking the factum of plea bargaining proceedings for the purpose of taking the admission of the co-accused as 'proved' in order to fasten criminal liability upon the Petitioner and concluded, albeit erroneously, that the said admission of the co-accused would bind the Petitioner also, and therefore, there is sufficient material on record against the Petitioner. 11. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has argued that during investigation, ASI Surender Kumar sent the recovered CPU for expert opinion to RFSL, Yashwant Palace, Chanakya Puri and after transfer of ASI Surender Kumar, the present IO obtained the RFSL opinion whereby it was stated that “ The exhibit hard drive marked “HDD1” was forensically imaged on sterile storage media using Encase Software. On analysis of imaged storage data by authorized hardware and software tools, the relevant documents “DOC1”, “DOC2”, “DOC3”, and “DOC4” could not be retrieved from exhibit “HDD1”. However, the retrieved data (doc-files, pdf files and images) from exhibit “HDD1” is provided in a CD vide Annexure “CD1 ”. 12. It is further stated that the CD given by FSL was examined, however, no incriminating material was found therein. CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 6 of 11 13. It is further stated that during investigation, regarding the IP address which was created in the DS-160 Form, a letter was sent to the concerned agency for details of the same but no details could be received by the IO. 14. Learned APP submits that since co-accused Harpreet Singh has admitted his guilt, therefore, Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable and the case is made out against the petitioner, consequently, the learned Trial Court rightly framed the charges against the petitioner. 15. For the convenience, Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been reproduced as under:-

16. On perusal of the same, where confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. 17. Thus, the aforesaid Section is not conclusive for the reason that only if the Court feels the confession is corroborated with other materials on CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 7 of 11 record, then that can be used against the co –accused and in that situation section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act will come into play. 18. It is not in dispute that there are three accused in the crime, however, since the co-accused Sukhdev Singh is not traceable and his identity has not been established, therefore, the chargesheet is filed against the other two co- accused. 19. It is also not in dispute that co-accused Harpreet Singh pleaded guilty before the National Lok Adalat and accordingly, he was sentenced to the period already undergone by him and fine of ₹5,000/- vide order dated 14.07.2018. 20. Provisions related to plea bargaining are contained in Chapter 21-A of the Cr.P.C. The relevant provisions are reproduced below:-

CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 8 of 11

CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 9 of 11

accused in application for plea bargaining filed under Section 265B Cr.P.C cannot be used for affixing guilt on any other co-accused. 22. It is also not in dispute that since there is no material on record either from the CDRs or there is no FSL report regarding that therefore if the CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 10 of 11 prosecution evidence on record is accepted as it is, still, the petitioner cannot be convicted. Therefore, there would be no purpose to direct petitioner to face trial. Accordingly, I hereby set aside the impugned order. 23. Even otherwise, if identify of Sukhdev is established and he is arrested in the present case on the material on record as filed by the IO with Trial Court and chargesheet is filed, the petitioner cannot be convicted. 24. In view of above, petitioner is discharged from all the offences, the FIR quashed against the petitioner with emanating proceedings thereof. (SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE OCTOBER 21, 2019 ms CRL.M.C. 5404/2019 Page 11 of 11