COURT–T.H.C.

1
RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA ITEM - __________
DATE – 26th Feb 2020
V/S
COURT ROOM No. - 336
ARUN SRIVASTAVA.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN SUKHIJA

ISSUE – Whether the accused is under the said complaint guilty of the crimes stated in it
under the sections 420(Cheating and Dishonesty including delivery of property),
465(punishment for forgery), 467(Forgery of Bill, Valuable Security, Will etc),
468(Forgery for Purpose of Cheating), 471(Used as genuine a forged record) and
506(punishment for criminal intimidation) of I.P.C.

No. Accused No. Relationship to the

complainant
1, Accused No. 1 (Arun Srivastava) brother
2. Accused No. 2 (Srivastava) Sister-in-law

LIST OF DATES

DATE PARTICULARS PAGE

Complainant came to Delhi to work in a rubber factory
so that he can earn a living. He used to send money to his
1989
parents and to his family members and also hand them
the money when visiting his native place.
The complainant purchased a house of 50 sq yards, with
the address 299/1, Gali No. 9, Nehru Nagar, Anand
2000 Parbat. The complainant as a gesture towards a blood
relative got the name of the accused no.1 in the
ownership rights documents.
2010 The complainant purchased one more plot 289/A, Gali .
 2
No. 9, Nehru Nagar, Anand Parbat. The Bayana/
Agreement to Sell was in Complainants name.The
Complainat got the said property purchased in the name
of his mother. (Smt. Lakhpati Devi). Entire consideration
again paid by the complainant.

Pg 14 to 47
Accused No. 1 has been cunning person who has been @Samples of
constantly involved in the crimes of forging documents documents
and signatures of governmental and non-governmental forged by
institutes and thus has not been able to complete his Accused No. 1
studies. @Annexure A

Mother of the Complainant expired. On the

commencement of the sad event of the death, the family
members and acquaintances had gathered. At this
14/8/2016
occasion the Accused No.1 brings out the papers of the
house transferred to the mother but instead they were in
the name of the Accused No. 1 and were forged.
Complainant registered a complaint to the concerned
S.H.O., P.S. Anand Parbat, wide DD No. 38(A) but the
Pg 28,29
concerned S.H.O. denied registration and investigation
@Copy of the
05/09/2016 based on this complaint.
said complaint
On this very day the Accused No. 2 threatened the
@Annexure B
complainant by intimidating him with the threat of death
of the family members.
17/09/2016 When S.H.O didn’t take action, the complainant wrote a Pg 30,31
complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and @Written
the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Complaint by the
 3
Complainant
@Annexure C,D