High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR registered under Section 188 IPC at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner and his wife are the joint owner of flat property. The petitioner and his wife had rented out the flat to a hotel, for a period of 36 months initially. The flat was rented out for Residential purpose, i.e., for accommodation of lady staff members of the Hotel exclusively, and for no other purpose. Subsequent to execution of the aforesaid Rent Deed, the Hotel had provided a list of 8 persons to the petitioner who were their employees and were to occupy the flat. After that, a complaint came to be filed on behalf of the residents occupying other floors of the property, to the effect that the occupants of the flat used to come late in the night and were a source of disturbance and security concerns to the complainants, as main entrance doors of the property would sometimes be left open in late night. On becoming aware of the concerns shown by the other occupants of the property/building, the petitioner immediately sent a notice to the Hotel seeking to terminate the tenancy and asking that peaceful possession of the flat be handed over back to him and his wife. The vacant possession of the flat was handed over by the Hotel to the petitioner. In between however, the present FIR came to be registered on the complaint of Head Constable alleging that during spot inspection, two ladies were found to be tenants of the flat, in respect of whom no police verification had been carried out in terms of the order dated 11.12.2017.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the flat was rented out to the Hotel for the purpose of accommodation of its lady staff. He further submitted that in pursuance of the rent agreement, a list of 8 persons, along with their tenant verification forms, was forwarded by the Hotel to the petitioner, which documents were duly submitted to the concerned Police Station for verification. It was submitted that as per the information disclosed by the occupants of the flat, only the 8 persons named in the letter of the Hotel were residing in the flat. He submitted that on becoming aware of the issues faced by the other residents of the property/building, the petitioner immediately terminated the tenancy and sought vacant possession of the flat which was delivered on 10.08.2018.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had rented out the flat without getting requisite police verification done, and thus, had violated the order dated 11.12.2017.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that in the FIR and the statement of Constable Sanjeev Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is not a whisper as to whether any verification was conducted with respect to those 8 tenant verification forms. The FIR is also silent as to on what basis the complainant came to the conclusion that the two ladies were tenants at the flat whose tenant verification was not done in terms of the order dated 11.12.2017.
Court found that there is no document relating to the aforesaid two ladies on the record, in the form of any ID card/residential proof, to show that they were tenants at the flat. Neither the statements of the aforesaid two ladies nor the statement of any other occupant of the building or the security guard was recorded.
Court stated that mere presence of the aforesaid ladies in the flat, even if proved, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis to establish that they were tenants. Court further stated that the charge sheet in the present case came to be filed hurriedly, within two days of the registration of the FIR, without proper investigation. Court observed that there is no material on record to support the allegation that the two ladies, were tenants at the flat whose police verification was not done in terms of the aforementioned order.
HC relied upon the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, where SC while summarizing the principles of law governing the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to prevent abuse of the process of Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, held that such power could be invoked to bring an end to the criminal prosecution in cases where “the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused”.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out against the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR and all other consequential proceedings are quashed.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case Title: T. Harish Kumar v. State NCT Of Delhi
Case Details: CRL.M.C. 3467/2019
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
