Col Karan Singh Solanki vs The State & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8781 Del

$~27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     Judgment delivered on: 26th November, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 3003/2014

COL KARAN SINGH SOLANKI                         ..... Petitioner
                  Represented by: Mr. Vipin Kumar Gupta,
                  Adv with Mr. Birjesh Singh, Adv for petitioner
                  with petitioner in person.

                     versus

THE STATE & ORS                                              ..... Respondents
                              Represented by: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP
                              for the State with SI Chetan Mandia, PS
                              Sagarpur.
                              Mr. Nishit Kush, Mr. Shyam S Sharma, Mr.
                              Sanjeev Kr. Baliyan, Mr. Mercy Hussain and
                              Ms. Yogita Bansal, Advs for R-2 and 3.
                              Mr. Dhanesh Relan and Mr. Arush Bhandari,
                              Advs for R-4/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 passed by Ld. MM, Patiala Court, in CC No. 137/1/13.

2. Further seeks directions to direct the SHO, PS Sagarpur to register an FIR on the basis of written complaint dated 04.10.2012 received vide DD No.41-B under the relevant provisions of penal law.

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner filed criminal complaint under Section 2(b) r/w Section 200 of Cr.PC, 1973 against the accused persons

and application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC.

4. The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court on 22.11.2013 and he was directed to lead pre-summoning evidence.

5. As per the allegations of the petitioner in the complaint that the petitioner along with his brother and other family members, legal hiers are the owners and in possession of land measuring 5 Bhiga and 4 Biswa complied in Kh. No. 5/2, village Nasirpur, New Delhi.

6. It is alleged that with an ill motive on the land in question, the accused persons persuaded the complainant to sell the land in question to them, otherwise, accused persons would get the land acquired by the DDA by misusing their official position. The petitioner and his family members first refused, but later they agreed to sell their land to accused no. 2 and thereafter, some documents were prepared regarding the land in question. However, the deal was not materialised as cheques issued by the accused for payment were bounced.

7. It is further alleged that the land in question was acquired by the DDA in 2009 and thereafter, the accused persons get it denotified in the year 2011. To get the land in question denotified, the accued no.1 had forged the signatures of the petitioner and of the other land owners on various documents / letters issued to the various authorities of the Delhi Government. Accordingly, the accused persons committed criminal trespass on the land in question.

8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 Sh. Mahabal Mishra, who has been 3 times Member of Legislative Assembly from Nasirpur Constituency and once Member of Paliament, during the relevant time, he was a member of committee of DDA. Thus, he used his

influence while getting the land in question acquired and therafter denotified the same by misusing his letter head and forged the signatures of the land owners.

9. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of UP & Ors. (2014) 2 SSC 1" the respondents are indulged in cognizable offence. Thus, Ld. Trial Court was ought to have directed the SHO concerned to register a case and investigate the matter accordingly.

10. On perusal of the order dated 22.11.2013, it reveals that Ld. Trial Court asked the SHO concerned to file status report and same was filed whereby stated that joint owners of property in question had filed a civil suit and same is pending adjudication before this Court. It has further been averred that there has been a number of litigations between the parties and matter seems to be civil in nature.

11. As noted above, it is admitted fact that civil suit filed by the petitioner and other persons against the accused persons for permanent injunction and cancellation of certain documents is pending before this Court. It is also not in dispute that in the complaint filed by the accused no.1 complainant along with three other persons have been summoned by the court for defamation which is also pending.

12. Vide order dated 27.11.2013, the Ld. Trial Court has not rejected the complaint of the petitioner filed under Section 200 Cr.PC. However, only dismissed the application under Section 156 Cr.PC by recording the reasons mentioned above.

13. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court has not closed the case of the petitioner.

14. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no

perversity and illegality in the said order. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to lead pre-summoning evidence as directed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 22.11.2013.

15. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

16. The observation made by this Court shall not prejudice the proceedings pending before the Ld. Trial Court.

SURESH KAIT, J NOVEMBER 26, 2015 ac/jg