Delhi High Court
Shrimati Krishna Devi Sangwan vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 18 July, 2018
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 18th July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 3737/2015
SHRIMATI KRISHNA DEVI SANGWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Devraj Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for
State.
Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Adv. for R-
1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The second respondent is alleged to have sold to the petitioner
608 square yards of land forming part of Khasra No. 568 situate in
Revenue Estate of village Hiran Kudna, Delhi by executing documents
in the nature of general power of attorney (GPA), agreement to sell,
affidavit and receipt statedly executed on 29.12.1989 for valuable
consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-, the third respondent (husband of the
second respondent) having signed the said documents as attesting
witness, the petitioner having been put in possession of the property
thus sold. It is a claim of the petitioner that after purchase she had
constructed building on the said property which she occupied using it
as residence and for running a school in the name and style of Krishna
Public School. It is alleged by her that in 2007 she was served with a
notice from Debts Recovery Tribunal in RC 137/1999 titled Punjab
National Bank vs. M/s Devata Paper Mills requiring her to appear on
06.11.2007 to show cause as to why the said property be not attached
for purposes of recovery of the debt outstanding against the said M/s
Devta Paper Mills, the proceedings taken out being under Section 83
of the Second Schedule of the Income-Tax Act 1961 read with Section
25-28 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions
Act, 1993. It is her allegation that the later inquiries revealed that the
private party respondents having sold the property to her had
subsequently fraudulently mortgaged it with Punjab National Bank in
the capacity of guarantor for loan taken in the name of M/s Devta
Paper Industries and further that in order to frustrate the recovery
proceedings, the property had been shown to have been transferred by
the respondents by sale deed dated 04.06.1997 in the name of their
close relatives, M/s Devta Paper Industries company, being an entity
which was non-existent, the loan taken being by playing of fraud
against the bank.
2. On the complaint of the petitioner, the FIR No. 93/2008 was
registered in police station Nangloi for offences under Section 420
IPC. It appears that on account of there being no effective action, the
petitioner moved a criminal complaint (No. 66/2003) in the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate on 17.10.2008 alleging offences punishable
under Sections 420/506/120B/34 IPC having been committed. The
investigating police filed a cancellation report in the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.05.2009. The criminal complaint (no.
66/03) which was then pending was clubbed with the said cancellation
report. The petitioner filed objections to the said cancellation report
and also filed another complaint (CC no. 298/3) in December, 2010
alleging offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC. By order
dated 17.11.2011, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed further
investigation. Pursuant to this, further reports were filed. The said
reports were considered by the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated
04.06.2014. The Magistrate has opined that the documents in the
nature of GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. could not have conferred title of
the property in question on the petitioner and, on the basis of this
view, he held that the complaints and the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. did not call for any further action.
3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved approached the Court of
Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by Crl.Rev. No. 79/2013
which was dismissed by order dated 17.07.2015 whereby the above-
mentioned view of the Magistrate was upheld.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the above-mentioned orders of the
Magistrate and of the Sessions Court, the present petition has been
filed seeking intervention by this Court in exercise of its inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. The petition is resisted by second to fifth respondents who have
filed reply.
6. The State has taken a non-committed stand by simply
submitting status report setting out the background facts and
summarizing the process that has been undertaken so far.
7. The core issue which needs to be addressed by this Court is one
of procedure. On the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the
complaint lodged with the court of Magistrate did not disclose
cognizable offences. The petitioner had come up with criminal
complaint even while the investigative process into the FIR was
underway. At that stage, on account of inhibition in Section 210
Cr.P.C., no inquiry into her complaint could be held by the Magistrate.
But, the investigative process having come to an end, the police
having concluded that no case was made out and having filed
cancellation reports, the bar under Section 210 Cr.P.C. came to be
lifted. The complaint which had been filed prior to filing of the
cancellation report was still pending before the Metropolitan
Magistrate. It had been followed by another complaint with the
allegations of certain additional offences. It was incumbent against
this backdrop on the part of Metropolitan Magistrate, in the given facts
and circumstances of the case, for opportunity to be given to the
petitioner to lead evidence for inquiry in terms of Sections 200/202
Cr.P.C. The Magistrate did not apply his mind to the requirement of
such procedure to be conducted and instead short-shrifted the whole
process. This renders the order dated 04.06.2014, closing the
proceedings on the complaint case vitiated.
8. For above reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned
orders dismissing the criminal complaint of the petitioner without
inquiry are set aside. The Metropolitan Magistrate is called upon to
hold a proper inquiry in terms of Sections 200/202 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. For such purposes, the petitioner shall
present herself before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7 th
August, 2018.
9. The petition is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY18, 2018
nk
