Delhi High Court
Ritesh Goel vs State And Others on 8 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 8th April, 2019
+ W.P.(CRL) 2207/2018
RITESH GOEL ... Petitioner
Represented by: Mohan S., Advocate
versus
STATE AND OTHERS ... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC for the State
with Mr. Hitesh Vali, Advocate,
ACP K.G. Tyagi and SI Dinesh
Malik, PS Subhash Place.
Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Advocate for
Respondent No.5 and 6 with
Respondent No.6 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
W.P.(CRL) 2207/2018 and Crl. M.A. No.28481/2018 (directions)
1. By this petition, the petitioner prays as under:
A. Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to SHO Satish
Kumar, SI Vinod, P.S. Netaji Subhash Place restraining them
from harassing the Petitioners by abusing their powers under
the law and take appropriate action against their conduct.
B. Direct SI Vinod to hand over the original documents -
Passport, pan Card, Aadhar card, gas connection pass book,
acceptance letter to pay Rs.25 lacs in favour of Respondent
No.6 to the Petitioner.
C. Direct the enquiry to vigilance department of Police as
SHO Satish Kumar and SI Vinod worked as a recovery agent
and illegally detained the Petitioner and also illegally
possesses the important/vital documents of the Petitioner.
2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that on 6th July 2018,
Respondent no.6 had filed a complaint with PS Subhash Place vide DD
No.44B wherein he alleged that the petitioner who was in the real estate
business induced and allured him and his father to purchase the built up
property bearing number 34, Pocket B, Sector-5 Bawana, Delhi measuring
100 sq. meters and assured them that he was the owner of the said property.
On his assurance Respondent No.5 and 6 agreed to purchase the property for
a total consideration of Rs.60,21,000/-.
3. As per the complaint on 18th November 2017 an agreement to sell and
purchase was executed between Respondent No.6 and the petitioner
pursuant to which he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner as
Bayana. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of handing over of
the physical possession of the property within 120 days. On repeated
requests of the petitioner regarding his urgent need for money, respondent
no. 6 paid Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner in February 2018 and Rs.2,50,000/-
on 5th April 2018. As per the agreement the sale transaction was supposed to
be completed by 18th March 2018 but the petitioner failed to execute the said
agreement. When Respondent No.6 made some enquiries, he found out that
the petitioner was not the owner of the said property.
4. The complaint was entrusted to SI Vinod of PS Subhash Place for
necessary action. On 8th July 2018 a PCR call was made by the Petitioner
for a quarrel that had taken place between him and one person namely
Vishal near Netaji Subhash Complex. During this time Respondent no.5 and
6 were present at the police station as they had come to enquire about the
status of the complaint filed by them. On seeing the petitioner respondent
no.6 met SI Vinod and asked him about the complaint lodged by him. SI
Vinod informed them that the enquiry with respect to the complaint was still
pending.
5. Pursuant to the filing of this petition a vigilance inquiry was
conducted by the ACP (Vigilance) under the supervision of DCP (North).
During the course of enquiry one person namely Rajinder Singh, friend of
the petitioner was examined who stated that he was present as Netaji
Subhash Complex when a minor quarrel took place between the petitioner
and one person namely Vishal. A PCR call was made by the petitioner in
this regard. He along with the Petitioner and Vishal went to the Police
station where the parties amicably settled their disputes. He further stated
that they also met Respondent No.5 and 6 at the police station and all of
them left from there after informing the Enquiry Officer that they would
settle their matter amicably. Later on, both the parties went to a park
adjoining the police station and both of them agreed to settle their disputes
with respect to the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- taken by the Petitioner in lieu
of the sale of plot in Bawana, Delhi. The petitioner had given his passport
and other original documents to Respondent No.5 as security till the amount
due to him was returned. He further stated that the police did not put any
pressure on the parties to negotiate the matter.
6. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner regarding no medical
examination, the PCR staff was examined who stated that both the parties
involved in the quarrel were asked to undergo medical examination but both
of them declined the same.
7. As far as the allegation leveled by the petitioner against police
officials with respect to taking of his original documents are concerned, the
same could not be established as the petitioner's friend Rajinder Singh in his
statement stated that the petitioner had voluntarily handed over the same to
Respondent no.5 and 6. The petitioner also alleged that his mobile phone
was not with him while he was in the police station. As per the Call Detail
Records of his mobile phone, he made 30 phone calls on 8 th July 2018 from
12:58 P.M. to 6:40 P.M.
8. The petitioner never made any PCR call or lodged any complaint with
respect to his illegal detention or unauthorized seizure of original
documents. Hence the allegations in petition and further claims being
unsubstantiated, petition and application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 08, 2019
'vj'
