Gurpreet Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3286 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                           W.P.(CRL.) 1561/2012
                                        Date of Decision: 30th July, 2013

        GURPREET SINGH                               ..... Petitioner
                     Through              Mr. Khushbir Singh, Advocate

                            versus

        STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.         ..... Respondent
                      Through  Mr. Saleem Ahmed ASC with
                               Ms. Charu Dalal, Advocate
                               ASI Raj Kumar, PS Narela

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

                            JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for issuing direction in the form of mandamus to the respondent

to register FIR against the persons named in complaint dated 9 th July,

2012.

2. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is:-

The original allottee Manglu Ram is the bona fide allottee of

property bearing No.16, Pocket-06, Sector-A/10, Narela as per the

Demand Draft-cum-Allotment Letter issued in the year 1992. It was

revealed to Manglu Ram after perusing the record of DDA that DDA

received a letter on behalf of original allottee Manglu Ram on 7th

April, 1993 where a person had applied for allotment of the above

said plot and to take possession and some amount was deposited by

them with impersonated person acting on behalf of original allottee

Manglu Ram. Possession was taken by that fake person acting in the

name of original allottee Manglu Ram on the basis of forged

signatures. The allotment had been shown in the joint name of

Manglu Ram and his wife Kamlesh and perpetual lease deed was also

prepared in their joint name whereas Smt. Kamlesh is an illiterate

lady and does not know English. She always put thumb impression

and now she is able to sign only in Hindi. Thereafter, series of

documents were got prepared under a well hatched design. Sunil

Kumar succeeded to achieve a mala fide motive and made false and

fictitious correspondence with DDA on behalf of original allottee

Manglu Ram and thereafter transferred the property by virtue of

special Power of Attorney and General Power of Attorney. The

original allottee Manglu Ram had transferred the lease hold rights to

the petitioner and had handed over the possession of the plot to the

petitioner on 23rd March, 2012. However, on 2nd May, 2012, some

anti-social elements entered in the plot and took forcible possession

by breaking locks of the petitioner lying on the doors of the plot.

Petitioner made a call at 100 number and asked for immediate police

assistance and for restoration of the possession of the plot but no

action was taken. The petitioner moved a complaint in police station

Narela on 9th July, 2012 but no action was taken. A writ petition

bearing No. 3833/2012 was filed and vide Order dated 3rd July, 2012,

directions were issued to DDA to initiate vigilance enquiry over the

entire episode and file report within stipulated period of time.

Manglu Ram and his wife have been examined by DDA and they

denied their signatures on any of the documents. As such, it was

prayed that directions be given to the respondents to register a case

against the offenders named in the complaint for commission of

offences of cheating, impersonation, forgery, transfer of valuable

securities, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy punishable under

various provisions of Indian Penal Code.

3. In the status report filed by the respondent, it was submitted

that on 9th July, 2012, the petitioner made a complaint vide DD No.

113-B against Anand Swarup Gupta and others. As per the contents

of the complaint, he is the bona fide purchaser of plot No. 16, Pocket-

6, Sector-A/10, Narela from his original allottee and the possession of

the property had been infringed by Anand Swarup Gupta and others.

Inquiry was conducted which revealed that the plot was initially

allotted to Manglu Ram by DDA. The plot was sold by Manglu Ram

to Sunil Kumar and, thereafter, Sunil Kumar sold the property to Lalit

Kumar and Lalit Kumar had sold the property further to Harish

Kumar and Vinod Kumar and lastly Harish Kumar and Vinod Kumar

sold the property to Anand Swarup Gupta on 4th September, 1997 by

Agreement to Sell (GPA). Later on, the property got converted from

lease hold to free hold in the name of Anand Swarup and conveyance

deed through DDA was executed before the Sub-Registrar on 10th

February, 2009. The petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.3833/2012 on

13th June, 2012 before the High Court of Delhi for cancellation of

series of documents executed in favour of Anand Swarup and other

persons by Manglu Ram and his wife and certain directions were

sought from DDA that he had purchased the property from Manglu

Ram by an unregistered Agreement to Sell (GPA) and other

documents on 23rd March, 2012. The writ petition was disposed of on

3rd July, 2012 with the direction to the petitioner to represent his case

before the DDA who would hold an inquiry into the allegations raised

by him. Instead of making representation before the DDA, the

petitioner filed this writ petition for registration of the case. Manglu

Ram has also filed a Civil Suit No. 262/2012 against Anand Swarup

Gupta as well as DDA which is pending in the Civil Court.

Moreover, a case FIR No.223/2012 dated 2nd May, 2012 under

Section 348/34 IPC was registered against Manglu Ram & Ors. at PS

Narela, Delhi on the complaint of Anand Swarup Gupta. The

investigation was conducted and during the investigation, the chain of

documents was verified and statements of witnesses were recorded.

Manglu Ram was arrested on 26th December, 2012. The case is still

pending for investigation. It was submitted that the matter is of civil

nature and civil suit is still pending. No police action is called for.

4. I have heard Sh. Kushbir Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sh. Saleem Ahmed, ASC for respondent.

5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that although the petition

has been filed against only four respondents, however, in the body of

the petition, at various places reference has been made to respondents

No.5&6 without naming them and it is not clear as to whom the

petitioner is referring in the petition at various places. Furthermore,

the petitioner is claiming title through Manglu Ram and it is alleged

that somebody else impersonated Manglu Ram and the perpetual

lease deed was got prepared in the joint name of Manglu Ram and his

wife Kamlesh whereas Kamlesh is an illiterate lady and is not able to

sign in English. Thereafter, it is alleged that Sunil Kumar got the

allotment of the plot in question and, thereafter, executed further

documents of transfer in favour of other persons.

6. Perusal of the writ petition itself goes to show that he had filed

a civil writ petition, wherein direction was given to make

representation to DDA, who was to consider his representation by

holding an inquiry as to how the perpetual lease deed was executed in

the name of Manglu Ram and his wife when the allotment was only

in the name of Manglu Ram. There is nothing to show that in

pursuance to these directions any representation was made by the

petitioner to DDA. Moreover, it is revealed from the status report

that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit before this Court for

cancellation of series of documents executed in favour of Anand

Swarup and Ors. Manglu Ram has also filed a civil suit which is

pending before Senior Civil Judge, Rohini Court. FIR has been

registered on the complaint of Anand Swarup Gupta and Manglu Ram

was arrested on 26th December, 2012. The question whether there

was any forgery in the document or someone else impersonated as

Manglu Ram and got the perpetual lease deed executed in his name

are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in the writ

petition.

7. In Himmat Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2006) 9 SCC

256; Mukesh Kumar Aggawal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,

(2009) 13 SCC 693; Subhashree Das @ Mili Vs. State of Orissa and

Ors., (2012) 9 SCC 729, it was observed that disputed question of

fact should not ordinarily be entertained in writ petition. The

question whether the allotment was only in the name of Manglu or

how the perpetual lease deed dated 22nd April, 1997 was executed in

the name of Manglu Ram and his wife etc. can best be determined by

the DDA and vide order dated 3rd July, 2012, the petitioner was

directed to make a representation before DDA who was to consider

the same and to decide the same preferably within a period of 12

weeks. However, instead of resorting to that recourse, the petitioner

has hastened to file the present writ petition.

8. Under the circumstances, without proper adjudication as to

whether the persons named in the complaint dated 9 th July, 2012 are

the offenders or not, no direction can be given to the respondent to

register a case against them as prayed in the writ petition. The

respondents are, even otherwise, under a legal obligation to consider

the complaint made by the petitioner in accordance with law and in

case, any offence is made out against any person named in the

complaint then to take action in accordance with law.

9. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

SUNITA GUPTA (JUDGE) JULY 30, 2013 rs