Delhi High Court
D R Choudhary vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 23 October, 2018
$~8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 23rd October, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3232/2015
D R CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State
Mr. Amber Mishra, Adv. for
Mr. M.P. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Rajendra, Adv. for Mr.
Hem Kumar, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had filed criminal complaint (CC No.472/1/2008)
against the second to fourth respondents alleging offences punishable
under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) having been committed qua the property described as Plot
No.AB-47, admeasuring 204.48 sq. yds., situated in Mianwali Nagar,
New Delhi, which originally belonged to him. The prayer initially
made was for the direction to the police for investigation into the case
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.). The said prayer was declined and the Magistrate held
inquiry under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. On the conclusion of the said
inquiry in which the complainant (the petitioner) appeared as his own
witness (CW-1), the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated
26.06.2014 found no case made out for the said respondents to be
summoned as accused. The complaint was, thus, dismissed.
2. The petitioner challenged the said order in the court of Sessions
invoking its revisional jurisdiction by petition (Crl.Revision
No.87/2014) which was dismissed by order dated 23.05.2015. The
said orders are under challenge by the petition at hand under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
3. The petition has been pending for the last three years, the
petitioner having sought adjournments on each and every date. The
request for yet another adjournment cannot, thus, be granted as there is
no good reason why the matter should remain pending.
4. The submissions have been heard. The record has been perused.
5. The case of the petitioner as set out in the criminal complaint
primarily was that since he was unable to look after the above
mentioned property, he had executed two documents, one General
Power of Attorney (GPA) and the other a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) which were registered on 31.12.1988 and 21.12.1988 with the
Sub-Registrar, Noida both in favour of Chhabil Dass, the late father of
the second respondent. It is also his case that he had later cancelled
both the said instruments by executing cancellation deed dated
19.02.1999 which was duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Noida
on 22.02.1999. He is aggrieved because the attorney (Chhabil Dass),
in spite of due intimation on 25.02.1999 about the registration of
cancellation deed on 22.02.1999, had executed certain documents
(GPA) in favour of the second and third respondents, in his
submissions, intentionally and deliberately to cause wrongful loss to
him and he would thereby term the documents thus executed to be
forged and fabricated instruments. He is also aggrieved because of the
mutation of the property in favour of the said private party
respondents by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) that had
executed conveyance deed dated 03.12.1999/22.12.1999, which was
registered with the Sub-Registrar, Jankpuri on 22.12.1999, followed
by transfer of electricity connection in their favour.
6. During the course of hearing on the revision petition before the
court of Sessions, the private party respondents, having been duly
noticed in compliance with the statutory requirements, participated
and brought to light that besides the GPA and SPA executed by the
petitioner in favour of Chhabil Dass, the petitioner had also executed
two other instruments, one receipt acknowledging payment of
Rs.5,00,000/- and the other a Will in his favour, the case of the private
party respondents being that it was a case of sale rather than only an
authorization to manage the property by attorney.
7. Be that as it may, this court finds, on appreciation of facts and
the evidence which was adduced during the pre-summoning inquiry,
that the dispute raised by the petitioner is essentially a civil dispute.
On being asked, the petitioner fairly conceded that a civil suit on
similar contentions and averments seeking cancellation of the
instruments in favour of the opposite party is pending adjudication
before the civil court, which now has reached the stage of final
adjudication.
8. In the given facts and circumstances, this court refrains from
making any observations vis-à-vis contentions of either side as to the
nature of the transactions that was entered upon by the petitioner in
respect of the said property in favour of Chhabil Dass on the basis of
GPA and SPA. That would be a matter which would have to be
adjudicated upon by the civil court where the issue is already sub
judice. No criminal case can be found on the averments and the
evidence which has been adduced in pre-summoning inquiry for the
reason, as is highlighted by the revisioanl court in the impugned order,
there is nothing showing any communication having been sent by the
petitioner unto the private party respondents after execution and
registration of the cancellation deed.
9. No case is made out for any interference by this court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. The petition stands dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 23, 2018
vk
