Delhi High Court
Ghanshyam Singh Rawat & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 1 March, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: February 21, 2011
Date of Order: March 01, 2011
+ Crl. MC No. 393/2010
% 01.03.2011
Ghanshyam Singh Rawat & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsels:
Mr. A.K. Thakur, Mr. R.K. Mishra and Mr. Anesh Paul, for petitioners.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
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 way of present petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 10th June,
2009 taking cognizance of the offences under Section 499, 500 IPC and order dated 4th
July, 2009 passed by learned ACMM summoning the petitioners as accused to face trial
under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
2. A perusal of order of the trial court and the complaint filed by the respondent and
also the record would show that the respondent no.2 carried out unauthorized
construction of property bearing number 168, Nesh Villa Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhan.
The petitioners, being neighbours and affected by unauthorized construction, made
complaints to different authorities. The allegations contained in the complaint have been
reproduced by the learned MM on the basis of which he summoned the petitioners to
face trial. The allegations are as follows:
a. Is manmani karyavahi se saare pados kea aas pass ke makan vaasiyon ki
Crl.MC 393/2010 Page 1 Of 4
privacy khatam ho jayegi [Due to this brazen action, entire neighbourhood
house owners would lose their privacy].
b. Is avaidh karye se sabhi aas pass ki gharon ki privacy choppat ho gayee
hai, sabhi sambhandit adhikaari aankh bandh kar manmani karne ki chhut
diye hain. [Due to this unauthorized construction, the privacy of all houses
in the neighbourhood shall be destroyed. All relevant officials who are
supposed to take action have closed their eyes and are allowing this
brazen violation of law.]
c. Is shatigrahast wall wale logon se abhdra vyavhar kiya jar aha hai.
[Despite the damage caused to the wall, the person who suffered are
being treated rudely].
d. Atyadhik khudai se aas pass ke makano ko tatha side lane ko kafi khatra
paida ho gaya hai. [Due to excess digging (of basement), the surrounding
houses and the side lane are under immense danger].
e. Ukat bhawan wale vaykti ka vyavhar sada abhdra tatha dhamki bahra
raheta hai. [The person owning the unauthorized construction was always
misbehaving and was giving threats].
3. It is not disputed that apart from making aforesaid allegations, no other
derogatory language was used by the petitioners and they had always been making
complaints about unauthorized construction.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of complaints
made by the petitioners, the concerned authorities ultimately woke up and they had
taken action against unauthorized construction. He has placed on record the documents
obtained from the officials of Mussorie - Dehradun Development Authority in respect of
complaints and the action taken. These documents show that the respondent no.2 had
actually owned actual land measuring 2350 sq ft in Khasra No.168, Nesh Villa Road,
Dehradun, Uttrakhand, Dehradun, a part of Khasra Khatoni number 5, however, the
respondent no.2 in photocopy of the sale deed manipulated the area of the land and
Crl.MC 393/2010 Page 2 Of 4
showed the area of land owned by him as 3214 sq ft. This fact was verified by the
Mussorie - Dehradun Development Authority from official record and the Development
Authority ultimately issued an order dated 22nd May, 2010 cancelling the site plan passed
observing that the approval for the site plan was obtained by fraud by changing the area
in the copy of the sale deed from 2356 sq. ft to 3214 sq. ft.
5. Since enquiry was conducted by Mussorie - Dehradun Development Authority
into the grant of permission for construction on the basis of approved site plan and after
looking into the certified copy of the sale deed obtained from the Registrar Office and
other documents and after giving opportunity to respondent no.2 herein to show cause
the order for cancelling sanctioned plan was passed and an order for sealing and
demolition of excess and unauthorized construction was also passed (The copies of
these orders have been placed on record), the complaints made by petitioners were
truthful.
6. I consider that in view of the fact that the petitioners had made complaint to the
authorities in respect of unlawful act being done by respondent no.2, no offence under
Section 499 and 500 IPC was made out against the petitioners. Every citizen of this
country has a right to report to the authorities in respect of an unlawful act and the
person violating the law cannot initiate proceedings under Section 499, 500 IPC for
lodging such complaints against violation of law. In the present case, the stand of the
petitioners was fortified by the action taken by the concerned authorities and the
authorities came to conclusion that all complaints made by the petitioners were truthful
and justified and the respondent no.2 had actually played fraud and obtained approval of
the site plan by concealing the material facts and by changing the documents.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 10th June, 2009 taking
cognizance of the offences under Section 499, 500 IPC and order dated 4th July, 2009
Crl.MC 393/2010 Page 3 Of 4
passed by learned ACMM summoning the petitioners as accused to face trial under
Sections 499 and 500 IPC are hereby set aside and quashed.
March 01, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Crl.MC 393/2010 Page 4 Of 4
