Delhi High Court

Lal Chand (Deceased) Through ... vs State, Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 28 July, 2023

                          $~
                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                  Reserved on: 21st July, 2023
                                                                  Decided on: 28th July, 2023
                          +     CRL.M.C. 2171/2019
                                LAL CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH
                                LEGAL HEIR SITA RAM       .....PETITIONER

                                                   Through:     Mr.     Nilanjan         Bose,
                                                                Advocate, DHCLSC.

                                                      V
                                STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ORS               .....RESPONDENTS

                                                   Through:     Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the
                                                                State/R-1.
                                                                Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh,
                                                                Ms. Shradha Maheshwari,
                                                                Advocates for R-2 to 18.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
                          JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to

impugn the judgment and order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Court

of Special Judge, P.C. Act (CBI-09), Central District, Tis Hazari

Courts, Delhi in criminal revision no. 16/16 (58611/16) titled as Lal

Chand (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs V State & Ors.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIDHI Signing Date:01.08.2023 CRL.M.C. 2171/2019 Page 1 11:07:48

2. Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant) filed a criminal

complaint bearing no. 104/1/11 under section 200 Cr.P.C. against the

proposed accused on the allegations that the litigations were pending

between Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant) and Maya Devi

(accused no. 1) and Puran Chand in different courts. An eviction

order was passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts

in favour of Maya Devi (accused no. 1) on 02.11.2010 and in

execution of said eviction order, possession of the shop bearing

no.11857/8, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, was taken over by

the accused no. 1 on 03.06.2011 with the help of police forcibly.

2.1 Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant) further alleged that he

had gone to attend the hearing of a case pending before the court of

Civil Judge, Saket Courts on 03.06.2011 then in the meantime, 30-40

persons threw away articles, furniture, locker/safe and other goods

from the shop forcibly and the said fact was informed to Lal Chand

(since deceased/complainant) by his grandson Arun. Lal Chand

(since deceased/complainant) along with his son Sita Ram reached at

the shop at about 11:30 AM and a PCR call was made.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIDHI Signing Date:01.08.2023 CRL.M.C. 2171/2019 Page 2 11:07:48 2.2 The stay order granted by this court was overlooked by the

proposed accused. Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant) led the

pre-summoning evidence. The complaint under section 200 was filed

to initiate the legal proceedings against the proposed accused for the

offences punishable under sections 380/506/34 IPC. The Court of

Ms. Shilpi Jain, MM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

dismissed the complaint vide order dated 24.08.2016 by observing

that there are contradictions/improvements in the testimonies of

witnesses examined by Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant).

The trial court has also observed that the cross-FIRs bearing

no.0088/2011 and 0089/2011 were also registered, out of which, FIR

bearing no.0089/2011 was got registered by Sita Ram who is the son

of Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant).

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2016, a criminal

revision petition bearing no.16/16 (58611/16) titled as Lal Chand

(Deceased) Through Legal Heirs V State & Ors., was filed. Lal

Chand/complainant had died during the pendency of the revision

petition and accordingly, his legal heirs as detailed in the memo of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIDHI Signing Date:01.08.2023 CRL.M.C. 2171/2019 Page 3 11:07:48 parties were impleaded in place of Lal Chand (since

deceased/complainant).

4. The Revisional Court observed that Lal Chand (since

deceased/complainant) was a tenant in a shop for 50 years, which

was owned by Maya Devi (accused no. 1) and regarding which, an

eviction order was passed and the said eviction order was executed

by the Bailiff on 03.06.2011. A revision petition was also filed before

this court against the eviction order but no stay order was granted in

favour of Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant). On 03.06.2011, a

fight occurred between the concerned parties and accordingly, FIRs

bearing no.0088/2011 and 0089/2011 were got registered. As

mentioned hereinabove, FIR bearing no.0089/2011 was got registered

at the instance of Sita Ram, son of Lal Chand (since

deceased/complainant) and in the said FIR, factum of theft of any

iron locker/safe and jewellery was not mentioned. The witnesses

examined by the complainant in pre-summoning evidence i.e. CW-4,

CW-1 and CW-2, who also deposed during the trial of FIR bearing

no.0089/2011, also did not state anything about the theft of iron

locker/safe or about any jewellery. The Revisional Court also

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIDHI Signing Date:01.08.2023 CRL.M.C. 2171/2019 Page 4 11:07:48 observed that the allegation leveled by Lal Chand (since

deceased/complainant) and statements of the witnesses in pre-

summoning evidence were not reliable. Accordingly, the revision

petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2018.

5. The present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by Sita

Ram, son/legal heir of Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant), who

challenged the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Revisional

Court.

6. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court vide

order dated 24.08.2016 has wrongly dismissed the complaint bearing

no.104/1/11 under section 200 Cr.P.C. for initiating legal proceedings

for the offences punishable under sections 380/506/34 IPC. The

Revisional Court has also failed to appreciate the pre-summoning

evidence led by Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant). He also

raised the points as stated in the written arguments and placed

reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court titled as Krishnan V

Kishnaveni, AIR 1997 SC 987, passed in Criminal Appeal bearing

no. 58/1997 and Shakuntala Devi and Ors. V Chamru Mahto and

Anr., AIR 2009 SC 2075. He also placed reliance on the judgment

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIDHI Signing Date:01.08.2023 CRL.M.C. 2171/2019 Page 5 11:07:48 passed by the coordinate bench of this court titled as Serious Fraud

Investigation Office New Delhi V M/s Shonkh Technologies

Limited New Delhi, AIR OnLine 2023 Del 116 passed in Crl.M.C.

1937/2014.

7. The counsel for the respondents except the respondent no. 1,

argued that Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant) was a tenant in

respect of the shop in premises 11857/8, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New

Delhi for 50 years, which was owned by the respondent no. 2/Maya

Devi and the said shop was ordered to be evicted by the order passed

by the Additional Rent Controller. The eviction order was executed

on 03.06.2011 and the allegations, as mentioned in the original

complaint were false and nothing was removed as alleged in the

original complaint. The present petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. The perusal of record reflects that Lal Chand (since

deceased/complainant) filed a complaint bearing no. 104/1/11 under

section 200 Cr.P.C. for initiation of legal proceedings under sections

380/506/34 IPC against the respondents no. 2 to 19 and led the pre-

summoning evidence. Lal Chand (since deceased/complainant) in

pre-summoning evidence, examined 04 witnesses including himself.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIDHI Signing Date:01.08.2023 CRL.M.C. 2171/2019 Page 6 11:07:48 The trial court while considering the summoning of the proposed

accused observed that there were material

contradictions/improvements in the respective testimony of the

witnesses examined in pre-summoning evidence and also noticed that

on the same transaction, FIRs bearing no.0088/2011 and 0089/2011

were registered. It was also observed that FIR bearing no.0089/2011

was registered at the instance of Sita Ram, son of Lal Chand (since

deceased/complainant).

9. The Revisional Court has upheld the observations made by the

trial court in order dated 24.08.2016 and also observed that there is

no whisper about the theft of iron locker/safe and jewellery in FIR

bearing no.0089/2011. The Revisional Court has rightly observed

that the allegations, as made in the complaint as well as in the pre-