Delhi District Court
Irshad @ Irashad Ali vs The State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi) on 27 August, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
C.R No. 32/20
ID No.67/2020
1. Irshad @ Irashad Ali
S/o. Late Yakub
R/o. Village Niwada
District Baghpat
Uttar Pradesh.
..............Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Parveen Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Harpal Singh
R/o. House No.E2/F4,
Dilshad Colony,
Old Seemapuri, Delhi.
............Respondents
Date of EFiling : 14.08.2020
Date of Arguments : 27.08.2020
Date of judgment : 27.08.2020
CR No. 67/2020 Page 1 of 7 Irshad @ Irashad Ali Vs. The State
& Anr.
ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition u/s. 397 Cr.P.C is filed by revisionist against the impugned order dt.10.07.2020 passed by Sh. Mayank Mittal, Ld. MM, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi in complaint case No. 615/2020, titled as Praveen Kumar Vs. Irshad @ Irshad Ali, PS. Seema Puri, whereby application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C was allowed.
2. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for revisionist as well as by Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Ld. Addl.PP for the State and Sh. Rajiv Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2. I have also perused the Trial Court record which is received through electronic mode.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist argued that Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C regarding alleged offence as disputed land is situated at Baghpat, U.P. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further argued that two agreements dt. 08.10.2018 and 05.04.2019 executed between the parties were also registered with SubRegistrar, Baghpat, U.P. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further contended that revisionist is rightful owner of the properties in question and has also annexed copies of Khatoni issued by Tehsildar alongwith the petition. It is further submitted that no CR No. 67/2020 Page 2 of 7 Irshad @ Irashad Ali Vs. The State & Anr.
offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court and FIR in question is counterblast of complaint dt. 12.02.2020 filed by revisionist before SSP District Baghpat, U.P.
4. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that complainant/respondent no.2 has specifically alleged in his complaint that the deal was done at F80, F1, Sai Nath, Dilshad Colony, Delhi and as offence was partly committed in Delhi, Ld. Trial Court has jurisdiction to try the complaint case. Ld. Addl. PP further argued that FIR No.331/20, u/s. 420/34 IPC has already been registered at PS. Seema Puri on 12.07.2020 and investigation is pending.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2/complainant vehemently argued that an application for grant of anticipatory bail as filed on behalf of revisionist has already been dismissed by Ld. Sessions Court. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 argued that revisionist and co accused persons pursuant to criminal conspiracy cheated the complainant within the jurisdiction of PS. Seema Puri as deal was done in a office situated at Dilshad Colony and payment of Rs.10 lacs was also made from the bank of the complainant situated at Dilshad Colony, Delhi. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that present petition is not maintainable as FIR has already been registered and appropriate remedy, if any lies with Hon'ble High Court for quashing of FIR.
CR No. 67/2020 Page 3 of 7 Irshad @ Irashad Ali Vs. The State & Anr.
6. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application u/s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed by complainant (respondent no.2); that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that revisionist is the owner of Khata No.272, Khasra no.691, area measuring 0.493 hectare situated at Village Sisana Khadar, Tehsil and District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh vide Khata Khatoni issued by Lekhpal on 29.11.2019; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that revisionist is also owner of residential plot measuring 500 sq.yards I.e 418.05 sq.mtrs, situated at Khasra No.79M, in the abadi of Niwada, Pargana Tehsil and District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh vide Khatoni issued by Tehsildar on 09.12.2019; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that revisionist being owner of aforementioned properties executed agreements to sell dt.08.05.2018 & 14.05.2018 in favour of complainant as well as one Sh. Anuj Kumar; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that if there is any dispute between the revisionist and complainant/respondent no.2 that is purely of civil nature and that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that present FIR is purely counterblast to the complaint dt. 12.02.2020 filed by revisionist before the SSP, District Baghpat, U.P and complainant has got lodged the present case against revisionist in order to save his skin/wrongs which have been committed by complainant upon the revisionist.
CR No. 67/2020 Page 4 of 7 Irshad @ Irashad Ali Vs. The State & Anr.
7. In brief facts are that respondent no.2 filed a complaint case u/s. 200 Cr.P.C r/w section 420/468/471/34 IPC alleging that accused no.2 namely Gopal Bansal and accused no.3 Lokesh Kumar are known to him for last about 1012 years. It is alleged that accused persons hatched a conspiracy, pursuant to which they entered into an agreement to sell the properties measuring 500 sq.yards, Khasra No.79, Village Niwada and agricultural land measuring 6 Bigha, District Baghpat, U.P, for which complainant and his friend paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs to revisionist through RTGS and deal was done at the office situated at F80, F1, Sai Nath, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. It is further case of the complainant that on enquiry, they came to know that accused no.1 had already taken loan on agricultural land and another property measuring 500 sq. yards was also part of a Masjid. Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint dt. 19.11.2019 to DCP Shahdara and on 26.11.2019 to SHO PS. Seema Puri but no action was taken, hence the complaint case was filed.
8. The main contention of Ld. Counsel for revisionist is that Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to try the alleged complaint as property in dispute is situated at Baghpat and agreements were also registered with SubRegistrar Baghpat. It is thus, claimed by revisionist that no offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court. Section 178 Cr.P.C provides as under:
178. Place of Inquiry or trial. (a) When it is CR No. 67/2020 Page 5 of 7 Irshad @ Irashad Ali Vs. The State & Anr.
uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
9. As per complainant the entire deal pursuant to criminal conspiracy of accused persons was done at F80, F1, Sai Nath, Dilshad Colony, Delhi and a payment of Rs.10 lacs through RTGS in favour of revisionist was also made from bank of complainant situated at Dilshad colony, Delhi. Perusal of Trial Court record shows that on 19.11.2019, complainant gave a complaint to DCP Shahdara, wherein it is specifically mentioned that entire deal was done at F80, F1, Sai Nath, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, which is also a subject matter of investigation of present case FIR No. 331/2020, u/s 420/34 IPC, PS. Seema Puri. Thus, prima facie, the complaint shows that partly offence was committed within the jurisdiction of PS Seema Puri, therefore, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The CR No. 67/2020 Page 6 of 7 Irshad @ Irashad Ali Vs. The State & Anr.
revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. A copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to record room. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Digitally signed by Announced in the open court SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA through Video Conferencing Location: Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts Date: 2020.08.27 on 27.08.2020 15:48:59 +0530 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) ASJ04/Shahdara/KKD Courts Delhi CR No. 67/2020 Page 7 of 7 Irshad @ Irashad Ali Vs. The State & Anr.