Delhi High Court
Suman Sarkar vs State & Ors. on 3 August, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.416 OF 2012
Decided on : 3rd August, 2012
SUMAN SARKAR ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate.
Versus
STATE & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397
read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated
5.5.2012 passed by Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Saket, upholding the order dated 26.3.2011
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR
No.28/1995, under Sections 442/451/427 IPC, registered at
Police Station C.R. Park.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner,
Suman Sarkar, is residing at first floor of the property bearing
No.B-228, C.R. Park, New Delhi. The said property is owned
by his father B.N. Sarkar, who is purported to have entered
into a collaboration agreement with S.K. Mitra, respondent
No.3 herein, for rebuilding the aforesaid property. S.K. Mitra
utilized the services of one Inderjeet Singh, respondent No.2
herein, for the purpose of carrying out demolition of the said
property and for reconstruction. The present petitioner,
Suman Sarkar, was not having good relations with his father
B.N. Sarkar. The possession of the property was handed over
to S.K. Mitra, who in turn gave it to Inderjeet Singh, who
entered into the property and started demolishing the same.
It was at that point of time that the petitioner, Suman Sarkar,
who was living on the first floor, raised an objection to the
demolition and the same was stopped by Inderjeet Singh.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner made a complaint to the
police on the basis of which aforesaid FIR was registered
against S.K. Mitra, the collaborator and Inderjeet Singh, the
person who was actually carrying out the demolition.
3. After framing of the charge, the evidence was produced
and the learned Magistrate acquitted both the accused persons
by observing that the factual matrix essentially constituted a
civil dispute between the father and the son and this was not a
case where any trespass was made by Inderjeet Singh as he
was lawfully put in possession by the owner of the property.
He acquitted the accused/respondents of the charge of
mischief also.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the appeal
before the Court of Sessions. The learned Court of Sessions
also agreed with the finding of the learned Magistrate and
accordingly dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, who is still
not satisfied, has chosen to prefer the present revision petition
against the order of the Court of Sessions dated 5.5.2012.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
gone through the record also. The main contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have
erred in acquitting the respondents for the offences under
Sections 442/451/427 IPC because the respondents had
trespassed into the property and tried to do mischief.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions. I do not
find that there is any impropriety, illegality or incorrectness in
the concurrent finding arrived at by the two courts below. The
factual matrix, as has been explained above, clearly shows
that the property in question is owned by the father of the
present petitioner, Suman Sarkar. In the capacity of the
owner of the property, B.N. Sarkar was well within his right to
enter into a collaboration agreement with S.K. Mitra,
respondent No.3 and S.K. Mitra was having documents like
power of attorney, possession letter, etc. in his favour for the
purpose of carrying out reconstruction after demolishing the
property in question. The present petitioner, Suman Sarkar, is
living on the first floor. If he is feeling aggrieved, he could
have gone to the civil court against his father and the present
respondents. But certainly, it is not a case where the criminal
intent is made out on the part of the father or the collaborator
or even for that matter, against the person who is carrying out
demolition lawfully at the instance of the former two persons.
7. I accordingly feel that there is no gross abuse of the
processes of law nor any order, in the interest of justice, is
required to be passed. There is no infirmity in the order
passed by the Court of Sessions and accordingly the petition is
dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
AUGUST 03, 2012
'AA'
