K.K.Khosla & Others vs The State & Ors
2008 Latest Caselaw 1357 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Crl.M.C.No.2661/2008

%                 Date of decision : 14.08.2008


K.K.Khosla & Others                      ....... Petitioners
                        Through:   Dr.R.K.Modi, Advocate.


                               Versus


The State & Ors                         ......... Respondents
                       Through :   Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State.




CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

      1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may            YES
            be allowed to see the judgment?
      2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?           NO
      3.    Whether the judgment should be reported          NO
            in the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th July, 2008

whereby the learned Magistrate has not sent the complaint of the

petitioner for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal

Procedure Code and has fixed the same for evidence of the complainant.

The allegation of the complainant is that his mother had

purchased the property No.559-560, New Rajinder Nagar from the

erstwhile owner who had let out the same to Sh.Ramesh Grover.

Sh.Ramesh Grover was a tenant in respect of first and second floor of

the property and continued to be the tenant even after the purchase of

the property by the mother of the complainant. After the demise of the

mother of the complainant the tenant attorned in favour of the

complainant and two lease agreements were executed for the first floor

and another agreement was executed with the brother of the tenant.

The brother of the tenant is alleged to have shifted to some other

premises and consequently Sh.Ramesh Grover became the tenant for

both the premises.

A suit for recovery of possession on termination of tenancy of the

accused, Sh.Ramesh Grover was filed which is also pending. In the

written statement filed by the accused it was alleged that he has

purchased the property from the complainant for a total consideration

of Rs.28 lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.18 lakhs was paid to the

petitioner.

The complainant has denied any agreement to sell or any

document executed by the complainant for the transfer of rights in the

property in favour of the accused.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the application for investigation

under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code and has fixed the

matter for the evidence of the complainant. It is apparent that no police

investigation is required in the facts and circumstances.

There is no manifest error or such illegality which will entail

interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code in the facts and circumstances. The petition is without any merit

and it is dismissed.

August 14, 2008                                  ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'