Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Khanna vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 7 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 24st January, 2011
Date of Order: 7th February, 2011
+CRL. M.C. 1640 of 2009 with Crl. M.A. 5915/2009
%
07.02.2011
SANJEEV KHANNA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Advocate with
Ms Krishna M. Singh, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) . ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP with SI Jaivir
Singh, P.S. K.M. Pur
Ms Dimple Vaid, Sister of accused.
Mr. Akshay Chandra, Advocate for DDA
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed an
order passed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner was booked
under Section 420/468/471 IPC vide FIR No. 524 of 2003 registered at Police Station
Kotla Mubark Pur. The learned MM, before whom charge-sheet was filed, after
considering the arguments of the prosecution and the petitioner observed that no
charge was made out against the accused under Section 468/471 IPC. However, a
charge under Section 420 of IPC was made out. Against this order, the petitioner
preferred a revision before learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge
vide a detailed order dismissed the revision petition discussing provisions of law as
well as precedents on the issue. This petition has been filed assailing the order of
learned Sessions Judge.
2. It is the settled law that Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be used as a Second
Revision Petition and the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. sparingly and in rare cases where it feels that unless power is
used justice shall stand defeated. It is not the case in hand. The accused in this
case had obtained mutation of the property in his name, left behind by his father, by
filing false affidavit, declaration etc. before DDA that he was the sole legal heir while
other legal heirs of his father were very much there and his father had died intestate.
By this mutation DDA acknowledged him as the sole proprietor of the property,
however, put a rider that if the declaration was found false, the mutation shall be
cancelled. Later on other legal heirs discovered about this forgery made by the
petitioner and made application to DDA and the mutation was reversed.
3. I consider it is not a case where no cheating has taken place. The contention
of the counsel for the petitioner that since mutation was reversed and mutation was
not a proof of ownership, no case under Section 420 IPC was made out. I think
recovery of the cheated property back does not take away the charge of cheating.
Mutation may not be a proof of title in certain circumstances, but, mutation of
leasehold property registered with DDA in his own name would have given a right to
the petitioner to claim the entire property under his sole ownership. I therefore
consider that this ground is not available to the petitioner. This petition is liable to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
FEBRUARY 07, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
