Delhi High Court
Ram Murti Devi & Ors vs State (Through Public ... on 20 January, 2016
Author: Suresh Kait
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 20th January, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 133/2016
RAM MURTI DEVI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. V.K. Garg, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, Ms. Noopur Dubey
and Mr. Prashant Shama, Advs.
versus
STATE (THROUGH PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for
the State with SI Rampal, PS-Safdarjung
Enclave.
Mr. Ajay Avinashi, Mr. S.P. Kaushal,
Mr. Madhu Sudan Bhayana and Ms. Dipti
Bhatia, Advs. for Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition, filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.,
petitioners seek directions thereby releasing them on bail in the event
of arrest in case FIR No.1038/2015 registered at police station
Safdarjung Enclave for the offences punishable under Sections 420/
467/471 of the IPC.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
initially Late Kali Ram became the owner of the land bearing no. 51A,
Arjun Nagar (then "Village Humayunpur" Delhi) in the year 1943-44
when said land was governed by U.P. Land Revenues Act, 1901 and
Punjab and Agra Tenancy Act in the year 1943-44.
3. On 05.03.1948 'Patta Dawami' in respect of the land in
question was executed by Late Kali Ram in favour of Rameshwar
Dass and Bhagwan Das, sons of Maman Chand and a "Patta Deed"
was registered on 23.04.1948. Thereafter, aforesaid Rameshwar Dass
started constructing houses over the land for inducting tenants.
4. On 14.06.1951, Patwari Form no. 16 of the said village was
issued to Late Rameshwar Dass, wherein stated that Kali Ram had
transferred the Patta in the name of Rameshwar Dass and that the
transaction was admitted by all of them as on 30.05.1951. Thereafter,
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was notified to provide for
modification of Zamindari System so as to create a uniform body of
peasant proprietor intermediaries for the unification of the (1) Punjab
and (2) Agra systems of tenancy laws within the State of Delhi. On
23.03.1959, MCD recognized Rameshwar Dass as owner in respect of
the property in question. Thereafter, in the year 1962, Sh. Maman
Chand, father of Rameshwar Dass had established a shop under the
Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 for the sale of kerosene oil
at the property in question. Thereafter, on 03.05.2016, DDA
recognized Rameshwar Dass as an owner of the land.
5. Ld. Counsel further submits that Late Kali Ram executed two
Wills; one in the name of the petitioners and second in the name of the
complainant and on the basis of the Will the petitioners are claiming
their right over the property in question and for that they filed a
petition before this Court being W.P.(C) 7728/2008, which was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.03.2012.
6. Ld. Counsel further submits that if the contents of the complaint
are accepted as true, even then the offences punishable under Sections
420/468/471 are not made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the
petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail.
7. To strengthen his arguments, ld. Counsel has relied upon a case
of Mohd. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2009 (8) SCC
751.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were granted interim bail
by the Addl. Sessions judge, accordingly, they joined the
investigation. However, they did not file the relevant documents
asked by the Investigating Officer which are necessary to investigate
the case.
9. It is further not in dispute that collusive suits were filed by
Rameshwar Dass and through those suits, petitioners tried to derive
and strengthen their ownership rights. But said move was to usurp the
property of the complainant.
10. The petition being No.WP (C) No.7728/2008 as noted above
filed by the petitioners before this Court was withdrawn on the terms
that the petitioner shall establish their lawful title in respect of the land
in question and then approach the MCD. It is established from the
said petition that the petitioners were not sure about their ownership
till 2012.
11. To the suit filed by the Ram Chander, i.e., complainant against
Rameshwar Dass, i.e., the ancestor of the petitioners, a written
statement was filed by Rameshwar Dass in which it has been clearly
admitted that land in question was let out by Kali Ram against a rent
of Rs.50/- and another piece of land against annual rent of Rs.200/-.
The said Rameshwar Dass never claimed ownership in the land in
question and since the petitioners derive their right through
Rameshwar Dass, whose right in the property as a son was not there.
Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to be owners.
12. It is submitted by the ld. APP for the State that similar nature of
cases were also registered against the petitioners as some piece of land
of the property in question was illegally sold by them to a company
which disentitles them to be considered for relief under Section 438
Cr.P.C. Moreover, after withdrawal of the above-noted petition in
2012, petitioners have not been able to establish their rights over the
property but are transacting the same illegally and as a result of which
the aforesaid FIR was registered. As per the complaint, number of
documents have been forged in the process and the petitioners have
provided only few photocopies of the same and not provided the
original documents.
13. It cannot be disputed that until and unless the original
documents on the basis of which the petitioners are claiming their
right are not provided to the Investigating Officer concerned, said
officer is unable to investigate the matter properly. Despite, the
interim protection granted to the petitioners, they failed to do so.
Therefore, their custodial interrogation is required.
14. The case relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is not
relevant to the facts of the present case as in that case, after
investigation, chargesheet was filed, charges framed and the
petitioners therein were aggrieved by the charges framed. Whereas in
the present case, only the FIR is lodged, the Police has to investigate
the case and thereafter, if necessary, they may file the chargesheet.
15. Thus, finding no merit in the instant petition, present petition is
dismissed.
16. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Police and join
the investigation.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 20, 2016jg
