Delhi High Court
Nirmala Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 July, 2018
$~12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 9th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 2008/2015 & Crl.M.A.7142/2015
NIRMALA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajender Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Mahesh Chand, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State
Mr. M.M. Aggarwal, Adv. for R-2 to
R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2013 of the
Metropolitan Magistrate on the file of the criminal complaint case (CC
No.163/1A/13) which was instituted by the second respondent,
whereby she along with two others (i.e. T.K. Abdullah and Sarbati
Devi) has been summoned to face criminal case on the allegations of
involvement in the offences punishable under Sections 468/471/120-B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). She has come up to this court
invoking extraordinary criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to pray for the
proceedings in the said criminal case to be quashed and the
summoning order dated 19.12.2013 to be set aside.
2. A perusal of the criminal complaint and of the impugned order,
copies whereof have been filed, reveals that the second respondent
(the complainant) has alleged that she had purchased property bearing
No.39, Village Mohammadpur from one Dharmender S/o Shri Hukum
Chand (fourth respondent) by a registered sale deed (Ex.CW1/A). In
August, 2001, however, T.K. Abdullah (impleaded in the complaint as
first accused) had asserted that he was the owner of the said property,
claiming title on the basis of certain documents in the nature of
agreement of sale, Will, GPA, rent deed, etc., purportedly executed by
Sarbati Devi (impleaded in the complaint case as second accused) in
his favour. The petitioner is daughter-in-law of said Sarbati Devi and
is also shown by the evidence which is adduced, to have executed
certain documents in similar nature, they, as per the complainant's
version, being in the nature of fabricated documents to set up a false
claim to the title of the property. In the corresponding civil case of
Sarbati Devi and the petitioner similarly made certain claims asserting
her title.
3. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it cannot be
said that the summoning order has been passed without any basis by
the Metropolitan Magistrate. The contentions urged in the present
petition seeking the complaint case to be quashed against the
petitioner are in the nature of defences which will have to be set up in
the criminal court at appropriate stage.
4. No good ground is made out for this court to intervene at this
stage of the process.
5. The petition and the application filed therewith stand dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 09, 2018
vk
