Smt. Sudha Sharma's appeal against acquittal dismissed as she fails to qualify as a 'victim' under CrPC provisions.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Smt. Sudha Sharma, who sought to challenge the acquittal of Respondent No. 2, M.L. Sharma, in a case involving alleged forgery related to property ownership. The court, presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, concluded that Sharma does not qualify as a 'victim' under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), thereby invalidating her appeal.
The case originated from a partnership firm, M/s Young Men's Corporation, which owned an immovable property in Mayapuri, New Delhi. The dispute arose when M.L. Sharma, one of the co-sharers, was accused of altering a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to claim ownership of specific portions of the property. This led to an FIR being filed against him in 2006, charging him with forgery, cheating, and related offenses under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trial culminated in the acquittal of M.L. Sharma in 2018, as the court found insufficient evidence to prove the charges. Sharma's appeal against this acquittal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge in April 2023, citing her lack of standing as a 'victim' and the non-maintainability of her appeal, which should have been filed by the State, as per Section 378 of the CrPC.
In the latest proceedings, Sharma contended that she suffered loss and injury due to the alleged forgery, claiming her rights as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. However, Justice Mahajan observed that Sharma neither demonstrated monetary loss nor harm to her property, reputation, mind, or body, as required by law to qualify as a 'victim'. The court further noted that issues regarding property possession were pending in civil court, negating any immediate injury claim.
The court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating it cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence unless a glaring miscarriage of justice is evident. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the earlier judgment and upholding the acquittal of M.L. Sharma.
Bottom Line:
The petitioner, claiming to be a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC, cannot invoke the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to challenge the order of acquittal, as neither of the essential ingredients defining "victim" are satisfied.
Statutory provision(s): Section 372 CrPC, Section 2(wa) CrPC, Section 378 CrPC, Sections 420, 468, 471, 511 IPC, Section 44 IPC
Smt Sudha Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833625
