* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.416 OF 2012
Decided on : 3rd August, 2012
SUMAN SARKAR ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 5.5.2012 passed by Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket, upholding the order dated 26.3.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No.28/1995, under Sections 442/451/427 IPC, registered at Police Station C.R. Park.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Suman Sarkar, is residing at first floor of the property bearing Crl. R.P. No.416/2012 Page 1 of 5 No.B-228, C.R. Park, New Delhi. The said property is owned by his father B.N. Sarkar, who is purported to have entered into a collaboration agreement with S.K. Mitra, respondent No.3 herein, for rebuilding the aforesaid property. S.K. Mitra utilized the services of one Inderjeet Singh, respondent No.2 herein, for the purpose of carrying out demolition of the said property and for reconstruction. The present petitioner, Suman Sarkar, was not having good relations with his father B.N. Sarkar. The possession of the property was handed over to S.K. Mitra, who in turn gave it to Inderjeet Singh, who entered into the property and started demolishing the same. It was at that point of time that the petitioner, Suman Sarkar, who was living on the first floor, raised an objection to the demolition and the same was stopped by Inderjeet Singh. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner made a complaint to the police on the basis of which aforesaid FIR was registered against S.K. Mitra, the collaborator and Inderjeet Singh, the person who was actually carrying out the demolition. Crl. R.P. No.416/2012 Page 2 of 5
3. After framing of the charge, the evidence was produced and the learned Magistrate acquitted both the accused persons by observing that the factual matrix essentially constituted a civil dispute between the father and the son and this was not a case where any trespass was made by Inderjeet Singh as he was lawfully put in possession by the owner of the property. He acquitted the accused/respondents of the charge of mischief also.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Court of Sessions. The learned Court of Sessions also agreed with the finding of the learned Magistrate and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, who is still not satisfied, has chosen to prefer the present revision petition against the order of the Court of Sessions dated 5.5.2012.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record also. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have erred in acquitting the respondents for the offences under Crl. R.P. No.416/2012 Page 3 of 5 Sections 442/451/427 IPC because the respondents had trespassed into the property and tried to do mischief.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions. I do not find that there is any impropriety, illegality or incorrectness in the concurrent finding arrived at by the two courts below. The factual matrix, as has been explained above, clearly shows that the property in question is owned by the father of the present petitioner, Suman Sarkar. In the capacity of the owner of the property, B.N. Sarkar was well within his right to enter into a collaboration agreement with S.K. Mitra, respondent No.3 and S.K. Mitra was having documents like power of attorney, possession letter, etc. in his favour for the purpose of carrying out reconstruction after demolishing the property in question. The present petitioner, Suman Sarkar, is living on the first floor. If he is feeling aggrieved, he could have gone to the civil court against his father and the present respondents. But certainly, it is not a case where the criminal intent is made out on the part of the father or the collaborator Crl. R.P. No.416/2012 Page 4 of 5 or even for that matter, against the person who is carrying out demolition lawfully at the instance of the former two persons.
7. I accordingly feel that there is no gross abuse of the processes of law nor any order, in the interest of justice, is required to be passed. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Court of Sessions and accordingly the petition is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
AUGUST 03, 2012 'AA' Crl. R.P. No.416/2012 Page 5 of 5