03
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1858/2007
ANIL AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
versus
SMR ELECTRONICS P.LTD. THR.ROH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 10.08.2010
1. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection and states that the Police after investigation has filed the charge sheet and the petitioners herein have been summoned to appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He submits that the matter is now fixed for arguments on charge. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also drawn my attention to the averments made in the charge sheet wherein it is stated that the property in question falls in Khasra No.53/2/1, Village Hasanpur, Delhi, and belongs to D.D.A. It is stated that the charge sheet relies upon the report of the Tehsildar.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 had purchased the property with open eyes and principle of caveat emptor applies. The petitioners were fully aware of the title which the seller had. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to the sale deed which was executed by Mr. Chutan through his attorney Mr. Shiv Charan Sharma in favour of the petitioners dated 19th April, 2001 and states that the petitioners have acted bona fidely. He relies upon the certificates issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 19th September, 1992 and Lal Dora Certificate dated 11th June, 1981. He has also drawn my attention to the agreement to sell between the petitioners and respondent No.1 which is dated 6th June, 2001 and states that nothing was concealed from the said respondent. In this connection, it is pointed out that the petitioners had filed a writ petition No.1857/2001 on 21st March, 2001 against DDA and a stay order was passed on 22nd March, 2001. This fact is mentioned in the charge sheet itself. He submits that the respondent No.1 was fully aware and had knowledge about the said writ petition and in this connection, he has relied upon payment made to the advocate appearing in the said writ petition one Mr.Sumit by the respondent No.1 on 11th April, 2002.
3. The present petition raises several disputed questions of fact which have to be gone into and examined by the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also submitted that once a charge sheet is filed, FIR cannot be quashed as the same is culmination of the investigation by the Police and is accompanied by the documents, statement of witnesses etc. In this connection, he relies upon the decision dated 1st July, 2010 in Criminal M.C. No.5553-54/2006 in Satyendra Kumar Jain & Another Vs. State & Another, in which it has been held that once the charge sheet is filed then only resort available to an accused is to either challenge the charge sheet as not making out any offence or argue the matter before learned trial court at the stage of framing of the charge. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also relied upon State of Bihar & Another Vs. P.P. Sharma and Another, 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 222 in support of the said contention.
4. The two decisions support the respondent No.1. In view of the aforesaid position, I am not examining the merits of the contention raised by the parties and leave it open to parties to raise all contentions before the learned trial court at the time of arguments on charge. It is clarified that it will be open to the petitioners to file documents before the learned trial court for admission/denial as provided under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 10, 2010 J/VKR/J