Delhi High Court
H.P. Vaid vs Pritam Kaur And Anr. on 13 July, 2005
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Judgment dated 24th January, 2000, of the Metropolitan Magistrate in Compt. Case No. 6/1 of 1986, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent-Pritam Kaur on the ground that there is no evidence on record put forth by the Prosecution after framing of charge on 9th August, 1986. The statement of accused was not recorded as the same was not required and the Respondent-Pritam Kaur was acquitted of all charges.
2. Aggrieved of this Judgment, the complainant (Petitioner herein) has filed the present Revision Petition. The matter has been pending in this Court since 7th September, 2000, and has been on Regular Board for quite some time. However, none appears on behalf of the Petitioner. On 10th January, 2005, Mr. K.B. Andley, was appointed as amices Curiae. But he is not present in Court today. I have no other option but to peruse the record of the case myself with the assistance of Counsel for the State and decided the matter since I am getting no assistance either from the Petitioner or from the amices Curiae.
3. The brief facts of the case are that :
"The complaint was preferred by Sh. G.P. Thareja the then Sr. Sub Judge, Delhi on 19.2.87 on the basis of an order dated 23.12.86 recorded in Misc. Case No. 78/86. The order arose out of a civil litigation in which the parties in question had been locked since 1971. The other side was represented by Sh. H.P. Vaid S/o Sh. Gian Chand Vaid R/o 14/15 Chandni Chowk, Delhi, who had moved the application seeking initiation of such proceedings as far back as on 22.9.76. the allegations against the accused have been succinctly noticed in the complaint by the Ld. Complainant Court to the effect that the proceedings of the Civil Suit No. 11/75 preferred by accused Jagdish Kumar and Pritam Kaur and the appeal No. 589/75 arising there from showed that Jagdish Kumar had retained interest and possession of the suit property No. A -03/19, Krishan Nagar, Delhi, which had allegedly been sold by him to Pritam Kaur and circumstances of the execution of the sale deed in which respect on 20.9.72 showed the said transfer was a dishones cloak and fabrication and that the said property had been knowingly and fraudulently transferred twice in anticipation of the restoration order during the pendency of the restoration proceeding instituted by Mr. H.P. Vaid on 10.6.71 which resulted in an order of restoration in his favor on 2.3.73 passed by Hon'ble High Court, which transfers were allegedly made with intent to prevent and obstruct the taking over and restoration of the said property in execution of the said order of restoration and that of the basis of such allegedly false and fabricated evidence the two said persons intended to mislead the court so as to make them form erroneous opinion touching material points and thus obtained stay/injunction orders against dispossession fraudulently through illegal acts and wrongfully prevented restoration of the suit property."
4. The charges were framed against the Respondent-Pritam Kaur under Section 120-B read with Section 206-207 IPC as also for substantive offences under Section 207, 209 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and thereafter, the mater continued to languish and inspite of a large number of opportunities given to the State, no evidence was adduced in support of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after recording his indignation as to the manner in which the case proceede and having no option available before him, acquitted the accused of all charges.
5. Since there is no evidence on record to substantiate the charge sought to be pressed against the accused before the Trial court and the Trial Court has acquitted the accused on that basis, I find no infirmity in the Judgment under challenge. The impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2000, is accordingly upheld. Crl.Rev.P.334/2000 is dismissed.
