Delhi’s Patiala House Court on Saturday directed Delhi Police to register an FIR against Rahul Gupta (son) on the complaint made by his father Kamal Kumar Gupta on the allegation of transferring his rights in his own name by way of a fake partnership deed of M/s P.P. Jewellers (Delhi).
Metropolitan Magistrate Umesh Kumar on Saturday while passing the order said, “After having gone through the complaint of the complainant and the ATR/ Status report filed by the investigation Order the complaint made by the complainant carries in it all ingredients of a cognizable Offence. Hence, in the light of Lalita Kumari’s Judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, the SHO concerned is directed to register an FIR and conduct a thorough investigation in the present matter.”
The allegation made in the complaint is that the partnership firm was working in a regular course of business and the partners have never been changed since April 1, 2005, in the partnership and the balance sheets of the partnership were being filed regularly. Further, the son was never a partner in the partnership of M/s P.P. Jewellers (Delhi) and both of them are having a lot of legal litigations. Moreover, they used to stay in the same house till 2015 and the son was handling the affairs, used to receive a lot of correspondence during that time, which did not come to the notice of the father and many communications were deliberately concealed by the son, stated the complaint.
The complainant further stated that only after several litigations started between the parties, did the father start perusing the documents and during the said time a letter dated October 13, 2015, came to his notice which had been sent by the State Bank of India to the partnership firm regarding the change in the constitution of the partnership firm and mentioned that they could not take cognizance of the claimed change in the partnership due to many defects in Partnership deed dated October 1, 2014, allegedly given to the bank by the son.
Adv. Samprikta Ghosal along with Adv. Saurav Chaudhary appearing for the father argued that on perusal of the forged Partnership deed dated October 10, 2014, it is clear that even the signatures on each paper are identical, meaning that they have been pasted from scanned signatures already available to the son. Further, the son has used this forged partnership deed dated October 1, 2014, as genuine with many authorities, banks etc. and thus, the father was constrained to file the present complaint and the consequences of the use of the forged partnership deed cannot even be ascertained, submitted lawyers.
Adv. Samprikta Ghosal and Adv. Saurav Chaudhary also argued that allegations are of forgery and even though it is established that there is a forgery committed to find out the author of forgery and to find out as to who are the persons who actually made the forged documents, police investigation is required as complainant can only show that the document is forged but the complainant can never lead evidence to show who has forged these documents. (ANI)