Kulbhushan Mittal vs Anshuman Rastogi & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 3311 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     DECIDED ON : 30th July, 2013

+      CRL.M.C. 1766/2013

       KULBHUSHAN MITTAL                                     ..... Petitioner

                       Through:      Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Mr. Balendu
                                     Shekhar & Mr. Aayush Chandra, Advs.

                            versus

       ANSHUMAN RASTOGI & ANR                                ..... Respondents

                       Through:      Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State.

       CORAM:
       MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section

482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside orders dated 14.08.2012 and 26.02.2013

whereby the complaint case filed by him against the respondents was

dismissed.

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

examined the file. Counsel urged that the Trial Court did not discuss the

evidence adduced by the petitioner in the impugned order. The witnesses

examined by him categorically deposed that the tenancy was transferred in

the name of the petitioner, his mother and minor son Shivam and rent

receipt Mark B dated 01.04.2005 was issued. Ren of `1944/- paid for the

whole year by cheque No.75525 dated 11.08.2005 drawn on Bank of

Baroda was encahsed on 07.09.2005. Subsequently the respondents in

criminal breach of trust and fraud after accepting illegal gratification of `2

lacs from his father Ram Kumar Mittal changed the tenancy in the name

of his mother and issued rent receipt dated 08.10.2005 in her name alone

and deleted his name and that of his son Shivam. At the stage of issuance

of summon under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the Trial Court was required to

take a prima facie view. The scope of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is

extremely limited. At that stage, the court is called upon to see whether

there was sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter and not,

whether there was sufficient ground for conviction of the accused. The

respondents had no legal right to dispossess him from the premises in

question without due process of law. Reliance was placed upon Nagawa

vs.Veeranna (1976) 3 SCC 736; S.K.Sinha vs.Videocon Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC

492; Sashi Jena vs.Khadal (2004) 4 SCC 236; Adalat Prasad vs.Rooplal

(2004) 7 SCC 338 and Indian Oil corp.vs.NEPC (2006) 6 SCC 736.

3. I have considered the submissions. The complaint does not

disclose as to when the petitioner was dispossessed of the premises in

question. It also does not disclose as to what steps were taken by him that

time to challenge dispossession. Para 5 of the complaint reveals that a

civil suit filed was not pursued. The petitioner did not place on record any

proceedings in civil case despite time sought on 3rd May, 2013. It is

unclear as to when the civil proceedings were initiated and what were its

outcome. The instant complaint case was lodged in 2009. The

complainant did not explain the inordinate delay in filing the complaint

case. The complaint does not disclose specific allegations under Section

406/420 IPC against any of the respondents. Originally, the petitioner's

mother was a tenant in the premises in question. Subsequently one rent

receipt was issued in the joint name of the petitioner, his son Shivam and

his mother Harbhaji Devi. The cheque for the sum of `1944/- was issued

by the petitioner which was got encashed. The petitioner did not issue any

subsequent cheque to make any payment as 'tenant'. Status report reveals

that the name of the petitioner and his son was included as the petitioner

furnished NOC from his mother. When his mother came to know about it,

she informed the respondents that she had not given any such NOC. The

status ante was restored and the rent receipt was issued in her individual

name. The petitioner has not impleaded her as a respondent. The

allegations that the respondents changed the rent receipt in the name of his

mother alone after accepting the illegal gratification of `2 lacs are vague

and uncertain. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not commit any

irregularity while upholding that the complaint did not show any

criminality. The petitioner filed revision but it did not find favour with

the Revisional Court. Since the dispute on the face of it is of civil nature,

I find no illegality in the impugned orders and need no interference.

4. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is unmerited

and is dismissed.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JULY 30, 2013 sa