Mukesh Gupta & Ors vs Daljeet Singh Uberoi
2013 Latest Caselaw 883 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                RESERVED ON : January 21 , 2013
                                DECIDED ON : February21, 2013

+      CRL.M.C. 163/2012 & CRL.M.A.613/2012

       MUKESH GUPTA & ORS                        ..... Petitioners
                   Through :           Mr.Fanish K.Jain, Advocate

                          VERSUS

       DALJEET SINGH UBEROI                       ..... Respondent
                     Through :         Mr.Azhar Dayan, Advocate with
                                       Ms.Sanjita & Ms.Adity Marvah,
                                       Advocates

        CORAM:
        MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 04.09.2010 by which

they were summoned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint

case No.1797/01/07 for committing offence under Section 447 IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record. It reveals that the respondent filed complaint case

against the petitioners for committing offences under Sections

420/468/470/471/420B read with Section 378/447/446 IPC. The

respondent alleged that he and his two brothers applied for an industrial

plot with Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (for short

'DSIDC') in 1976-1977. He with his brothers R.P.Uberoi and H.S.Uberoi

formed a partnership in the name and style of M/s Roop Pal & Brothers.

The industrial plot was allotted to M/s Roop Pal and Brothers in 1990.

Construction on the plot could not be carried out due to non-availability of

water and electricity. Huge amount was spent on raising construction in

1994-95. The complainant further averred that he used to visit the plot

earlier but due to some family problems and health reasons, he was unable

to regularly visit it. His two brothers used to take care of the plot. He

shifted his machinery and equipment from his factory at Rajouri Garden

to the industrial plot in question. In 2000, when he visited the plot, he

found that some persons were running the factory. They had illegally

occupied it. False and fabricated partnership deed was executed by them

in the year 1992-93 and they took illegal possession of the plot. The

original partnership in the name and style M/s Roop Pal & Brothers was

never dissolved. Several complaints were made against the

accused/petitioners but in-vain. The Complainant appeared as CW-1 and

examined CW-2- R.D.Sharma from DSIDC in his pre-summary evidence.

Vide order dated 04.09.2010, the learned Magistrate found that the

petitioners had prima facie committed the offence under Section 447 IPC

and summoned them.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that

the Industrial plot in question was sold by M/s. Roop Pal and Brothers in

1996 to Ramesh Chander and necessary documents were executed in his

favour on 11.03.1996 by Roop Pal Uberoi and Harpal Singh Uberoi. The

partnership firm M/s Roop Pal and Brothers consisted only of Roop Pal

Uberoi and Harpal Singh Uberoi. An information was given to DSIDC on

28.01.1992. Plot in question changed hands thereafter to different

purchasers. The petitioners purchased the plot in question from Mrs.Rajni

Ghai who executed necessary documents in their favour. They further

sold the said property to Raj Kumar Garg on 28.12.2007 and executed

various documents in his favour. Vacant possession of the premises in

question was handed over to him. Raj Kumar Garg is in possession of the

premises/plot since 21.11.2007.

4. Contention of the counsel for the respondent is that all these

disputed facts cannot be taken into consideration in the proceedings under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. The matter requires investigation and these facts can

be agitated by leading evidence before the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate.

5. It is not disputed that the plot in question was allotted in the

name of M/s Roop Pal and Brothers which formed a partnership firm

consisting of the petitioner, his brothers Roop Pal Uberoi and Harpal

Singh Uberoi. However, subsequently, constitution of the partnership

firm changed and M/s Roop Pal and Brothers consisted only of Roop Pal

Uberoi and Harpal Singh Uberoi. The petitioners have filed on record

Form-A, Register of Firm maintained under Section 9 of the Indian

Partnership Act where name of the partners have been shown as Roop Pal

Uberoi and Harpal Singh Uberoi. Date of registration is 07.02.1992. The

respondent did not place on record any document to show that he

continued to be the partner in the said firm. In his statement as CW-1

recorded on 04.08.2008, he admitted that the Partnership-Deed showed

only two partners. Surprisingly, the respondent did not implead his

brothers R.P.Uberoi and H.S.Uberoi as accused. He did not lodge any

complaint against them for disposing of the plot in question to the buyers

without his consent. The petitioners have placed on record number of

documents showing that the plot in question was sold by the two brothers

and they executed various documents. The respondent has not denied

signatures of his brothers on these documents. The respondent did not

produce any document to show if he ever remained in possession of the

plot in question. Roop Pal Uberoi and Harpal Singh Uberoi, being

partners, had equal authority to deal with the plot in question. The

respondent did not challenge change in the constitution of firm M/s Roop

Pal & Brothers any time. He did not ask his brothers as to how and under

what circumstances without any authority, they had disposed of the plot in

question to the buyers for valuable consideration. The respondents also

failed to offer any plausible explanation for the delay in filing the

complaint case. Nothing is on record to show that on the date when the

complaint was filed, the petitioners were in physical possession of the plot

in question. They have specifically stated that the plot in question is in

possession of Raj Kumar Garg since 28.12.2007.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I

am of the view that the complaint case filed by the respondent against the

petitioners did not disclose commission of offence under Section 447 IPC.

The entire facts in the complaint case are incomplete and hazy. No

worthwhile evidence has been collected and produced before the court.

There was no sufficient material before the court to proceed against the

petitioners for committing offence under Section 447 IPC. The

proceedings initiated by the respondent are abuse of the process of the

court and liable to be quashed.

7. The petition is allowed and all the proceedings in complaint

case No.1797/01/07 are quashed qua the petitioners. Crl.M.A.613/2012

also stands disposed of.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE February 21, 2013 sa