Delhi District Court
Gurvinder Pal Singh vs State on 6 July, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS (NORTH) DELHI
CR NO. 34/12
Gurvinder Pal Singh,
S/o Gurbax Singh,
R/o C108, Farmer's Apartments,
Sector13, Rohini,
Delhi110085.
........PETITIONER
versus
1. State
2. Ravinder Pal Singh,
S/o Gurbax Singh.
3. Jitender Pal Singh,
S/o Gurbax Singh.
Both R/o C95, Farmer's Apartments,
Sector13, Rohini,
Delhi110085.
.......RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.05.2012
ORDER RESERVED ON : 02.07.2012
DATE OF ORDER : 06.07.2012
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of criminal revision against the order of Ld Metropolitan Magistrate dated 31.01.2012, whereby the complaint of the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that complainant/petitioner filed a complaint with respect to two shops in C.R.No. 34/12 Page 1 of 3 pages Gurvinder Pal Singh Vs State etc. 2 property no. 3992, Roshanara Road, Delhi110007 and one shop in property no. 3994. The complaint has been filed against the respondents, who are real brothers and coowners of the property in question. According to the complainant, he has been in exclusive possession of the property but in October 2010, both the respondents have tried to break open the locks of the shops and have also criminally intimidated the complainant. The respondents have also put their locks on the shutter of two shops. It is further alleged that on 07.10.2010, the respondents threatened the complainant and complainants preferred a complaint to SHO on this aspect. It is further alleged that intentions of the respondents are malafide and they want to dispossess the complainant. On 07.10.2010, the complainant found locks of his shop removed. It is prayed that proceedings be initiated against the respondent u/s 448/506 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
3. The ld. magistrate fixed the complaint for evidence, whereby petitioner/complainant examined himself as CW1. He reiterated the averments made in the complaint and filed the sale deed relating to the property EX CW1/1 and also the complaint preferred by him EX CW1/2. The ld. magistrate dismissed the complaint on the findings that complainant has failed to prove his exclusive possession with respect to property and therefore no case for criminal trespass is made out against the respondents.
4. I have heard Ms. Manju, Ld. counsel for petitioner, Sh. G.S. Guraya Ld. Addl. P.P. for State/respondent and given due C.R.No. 34/12 Page 2 of 3 pages Gurvinder Pal Singh Vs State etc. 3 consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order and the trial court record.
5. On hearing both the sides and given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal of the complaint. It is evident and also not disputed that petitioner and respondents are the coowners of the property. No evidence has been brought on record by the complainant/petitioner to show that he has been in exclusive possession of the property or that respondents have never been in possession thereof. The averments contained in the complaint regarding trespass and criminally intimidation have also not been proved by producing any neutral or independent evidence on record. I am of the opinion that sufficient evidence is not there to proceed against the respondents for the offence of trespass as they are co owners of the property and have all the rights and interest in the property. Otherwise also, this appears to be a dispute of civil nature and no criminal case is made out against the respondents. The ld. magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint.
6. The present revision is dismissed accordingly. Copy of this order alongwith trial court record be sent to the trial court. Revision file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 6th July, 2012 (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
DELHI
C.R.No. 34/12 Page 3 of 3 pages
Gurvinder Pal Singh Vs State etc.