Delhi High Court
Syed Man Meer & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 16 April, 2019
$~4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 16th April, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1906/2016
SYED MAN MEER & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP
for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the basis of averments in criminal complaint (CC No.
55/1/2012) of the second respondent (the complainant) and the
evidence led in support in the pre-summoning inquiry under Sections
200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the
petitioners and their father Syed Daud Meer, along with third and
fourth respondents herein, were summoned by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, by order dated 17.02.2016, to appear as accused persons
and face proceedings on the accusations of involvement in offences
punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120 B of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. It is stated that Syed Daud Meer, father of the petitioners, he
being the first accused in the criminal complaint case of the second
respondent, died on 30.06.2013, which fact is fairly conceded to be
correct by the counsel representing the second respondent. The
allegations against the petitioners and their late father Syed Daud
Meer are distinct from the allegations against the third and fourth
respondents, and, thus, the grievances of the petitioners against the
summoning order would have no bearing, and shall not be construed
as reflective of opinion, on the case of the complainant against third
and fourth respondents.
3. Syed Daud Meer, the late father of the petitioners, had instituted
a civil suit no. 347/1998 seeking a decree of specific performance of
contract and for perpetual injunction vis-à-vis property no. 745, Fatak
Dhobian, Farash Khana, Delhi, on the strength of a document which
he described as an agreement of purchase of the said property
executed by the complainant, she purportedly having received from
him an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. The suit was
contested by the complainant claiming, inter alia, the said document
dated 10.07.1997 to be forged and fabricated. It appears that in the
said civil suit, copy of the said document styled as "receipt" was
brought in evidence as Ex.PW-1/1, its copy having been presented
during the pre-summoning inquiry into the criminal complaint as
Ex.CW-1/B.
4. A copy of the judgment dated 22.01.2002 rendered by the court
of Additional District Judge on the said suit of Syed Daud Meer has
been submitted and was relied upon in the pre-summoning inquiry by
the complainant. Upon perusal, it is noted that the civil court was not
satisfied with the contentions based on the said document about any
agreement of sale of the said property or about the complainant having
received any such amount as earnest money. The suit was dismissed
on the basis of findings to such effect being recorded. The plaintiff
Syed Daud Meer challenged the said judgment of the court of
Additional District Judge, by regular first appeal (RFA no. 394/2003)
before this Court, which was dismissed in default and for non-
prosecution by order dated 06.01.2012. It is not disputed that the said
decision dated 06.01.2012 eventually attained finality as no
application was moved for the proceedings therein being revived or re-
opened nor it was challenged by any further petition.
5. Against the above backdrop, the criminal complaint was filed
alleging the afore-mentioned offences having been committed by the
petitioners and their late father Syed Daud Meer, averments qua third
and fourth respondents being that they had "also committed" similar
offences by compelling the complainant to execute the sale deed in
their name without paying full consideration and get the sale deed
executed in their name for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- only.
6. It is conceded on behalf of the complainant that in the pre-
summoning inquiry, she led evidence by examining only herself (as
CW-1) and her daughter Farheen Israil (as CW-2), the evidence of
both the said witnesses (CW-1 and CW-2) primarily meant to bring on
record the above-mentioned documents. Noticeably, neither in the
averments nor in the pre-summoning evidence, there is even a whisper
of allegation qua the petitioners herein as to their involvement in any
specific act of commission or omission in concert or collusion with
Syed Daud Meer, their late father.
7. The allegations in the complaint lodged by the second
respondent insofar as they are directed against the petitioners were
vague. They have been clubbed with the late father without any
specific role being attributable to them. They have been wrongly
accused of having filed the afore-mentioned civil suit or having
presented forged or fabricated document in the civil suit. There is no
evidence worth the name in the pre-summoning inquiry on the basis of
which it could be inferred that either of the four petitioners had any
role to play in the fabrication of the receipt in question.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, there is not the least doubt
that the allegations in the criminal complaint against the petitioners are
wholly unfounded, no shred of evidence having been presented in the
pre-summoning inquiry in support of the same. The summoning order
passed against the petitioners is found to be an order mechanically
passed without due application of mind. The proceedings in its wake
against the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue inasmuch as the
same would be an abuse of the process of law.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The
proceedings against the petitioners in the criminal complaint case (CC
No. 55/1/2012), pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate,
pursuant to the summoning order dated 17.02.2016, are hereby
quashed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 16, 2019
nk
