Delhi District Court
Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta vs . Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others. on 10 October, 2014
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta
Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
CR No. 62/2013.
Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta,
S/o Sh. Charas Dass Gupta,
R/o H. No. B/9134/3,
Opposite PWD Rest House,
Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines,
Ludhiana, (Punjab). ... Revisionist.
Vs.
1. Mrs. Sangeeta Ahlawat,
W/o Sh. Ajay Ahlawat,
2. Sh. Ajay Ahlawat,
S/o Unknwon,
Both R/o 10/14, Sector 1,
Rohtak, (Haryana).
Second Address:
S137, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi.
Page No. 1 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta
Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
Third Address:
The Ressale Estate,
Bijwasan, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Vinod Kumar,
President,
4. Sh. Shikhar Jain,
Secretary,
of M/s Vardhman Adhyatmik Sansthan (Regd),
I1149, Palam Vihar,
Gurgaon, (Haryana).
5. Sh. Anand Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh,
R/o H. No. 359, VPO Bijwasan,
New Delhi.
6. Sh. Gajraj Rana,
S/o Sh. Parbhu Dayal,
R/o VPO Bijwasan,
New Delhi.
7. The State. ... Respondents.
Date of Institution. : 19.3.2013.
Date of Arguments. : 1.9.2014.
Date of Order. : 10.10.2014.
Page No. 2 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta
Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
10.10.2014.
Present: None for revisionistcomplainant and respondents
no. 1 to 6.
Sh. V.K. Swami, ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no. 7.
Today the case is fixed for orders on the present criminal revision petition as well as on the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act moved on behalf of the revisionist. Arguments on the same were addressed by Sh. Vipin Sehrawat, ld. counsel for revisionist, Sh. Surender Sheoran, ld. counsel for respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6, Sh. Atul Aggarwal, ld. counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 and Sh. V.K. Swami, ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no. 7, on 1.9.2014.
I have perused the entire record including TCR carefully.
:: ORDER ON THE APPLICATION U/S 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT :: Considering the facts and circumstances, in view of the reasons mentioned in the application, in the interest of justice and in order to do substantive justice between the parties, application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation Page No. 3 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
of delay in filing the present criminal revision petition, is allowed and the delay in filing the present revision petition, is condoned.
:: ORDER ON CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION ::
1. The challenge in the present criminal revision petition u/s 397 r/w/s 401 CrPC filed by the revisionistoriginal complainant, is to the impugned order dated 4.12.2012 of Sh. D.K. Sharma, the then ld. ACMM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in complaint case titled as "Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others", bearing CC No. 35/1, whereby the complaint u/s 200 CrPC of the revisionistoriginal complainant was dismissed by the ld. Trial Court after leading of pre summoning evidence.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present criminal revision petition are that the revisionist had filed a complaint u/s 200 CrPC alongwith an application u/s 156 (3) CrPC alleging commission of offences u/s 420/474/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC against the respondents no. 1 to 6. The claim of the revisionist is that he is General Secretary of Indian Medical Association (Punjab State) and he alongwith like minded members of Indian Medical Association Page No. 4 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
planned to shift from Punjab to Delhi as terrorism was at its peak there and the revisionist was authorised by the Association to purchase a suitable land for the purpose of their shifting to Delhi. Accordingly the revisionist purchased total 52 bigha and 6 Biswas of land through the sale deed from 29 different persons and the process was completed some where in the year 2004. It is further case of the revisionist that the said land was shown to be mutated at point 'A' in Mark C1 pertaining to year 20022003. However it is further the case of the revisionist that the land purchased was actually found to be excess in existence. The possession was handed over to the revisionist on 8.1.1993. Since the condition in Punjab improved and also because land purchased was agricultural and same could not be used for dwelling house, so it was resolved by majority of members to sell the land and ultimately on 10.12.2004, 48 bighas of land was sold to M/s Saj Property Pvt. Ltd. vide mutation dated 10.12.2004 and the possession of 4 bigha 6 biswa out of the said khasra no. 8/9 Min, was retained and the same was mutated in the name of wife of revisionist no. 1 i.e. Smt. Anjana Gupta and the said land of Anjana Gupta was adjacent to excess land. It is also claim of the revisionist that an agreement was executed wherein details of the excess land of remaining property of 1662 sq. yards retained by the revisionist Page No. 5 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
with a boundary wall and temple of Daity Nav Durga, was mentioned. It is further the case of revisionist that on 13.6.2007 remaining land of 4 bighas was sold to M/s Saj Property Pvt. Ltd. by retaining 6 biswas towards excess land. It is also the claim of the revisionist that he is a resident of Punjab, a far away place and respondents no. 1 and 2 were aware of the fact that he is not residing in Delhi and occasionally used to come at the property and taking benefit of the fact of revisionist being outsider, respondents no. 1 and 2 hatched a conspiracy by selling the land owned and possessed by the revisionist fraudulently in league with each other and as a result a GPA dated 3.12.2008 was prepared in favour of one Deepak Udar, who subsequently further prepared a GPA in favour of respondents no. 5 and 6 in relation to the same property. It is further the case of the revisionist that someone informed him telephonically about demolishing of the boundary wall of his aforesaid remaining property, whereupon he came to Delhi and tried to pacify the matter by showing the documents of ownership and gave a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and since the land was worth more than Rs. One crore, the revisionist approached the DCP, Land Grabbing Cell, vide his representation dated 24.1.2012. It is further the case of the revisionist that he was already in possession of said land Page No. 6 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
since 8.1.1993 and had constructed a boundary wall covering the temple area in the year 1993 and this specification of land was mentioned in the agreement to sell and it was further mentioned that the revisionist was also in possession of the portion of the vacant land adjoining the eastern side upto the boundary of property owned by a third party and the entire land already in possession of the revisionist, was also described in the agreement. It is also the case of the revisionist that finally the revisionist approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for permanent injunction and subsequent to that the respondents no. 1 to 6 came and approached the Civil Court by filing an application u/o 1 r 10 r/w/s 151 CPC for impleadment as necessary party, which the Civil Court allowed while, vacating the stay order granted in favour of revisionist and since during those proceedings certain other relevant documents came to the knowledge of the revisionist on the basis of which, the revisionist came to know about fraudulent acts played by the respondents no. 1 to 6 in connivance with each other and the same had caused undue loss to the revisionist and undue gain to them, for which the revisionist had filed the original complaint case u/s 200 CrPC alongwith an application u/s 156 (3) CrPC (which was declined) and the original complaint of the revisionist was also subsequently dismissed by the ld. Trial Page No. 7 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
Court vide impugned order.
3. The application u/s 156 (3) CrPC of the revisionist was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2012 by Sh. Sanjay Bansal, the then ld. ACMM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. The Criminal Revision Petition No. 391/12 preferred by the revisionist against the said order was also dismissed by Sh. Virender Bhat, ld. ASJ, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 22.8.2012.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that various civil cases are pending in different Courts between the same parties regarding the property. Civil suit no. 312/11 for permanent injunction filed by the revisionist herein is with respect to 6 biswas (300 square yards) in Khasra No. 8/9 (Min) situated in revenue estate of Village Sahalapur, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, out of the entire suit land measuring approximately 1600 square yards. Another civil suit no. 65/11 for declaration and permanent injunction is pending in the Court of Sh. Deepak Sehrawat, ld. ACJcumCCJcumARC, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, and is fixed for 20.10.2014. It is also pertinent to mention here that Sh. Naveen Arora, the then ld. Sr. Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, vide his order dated 13.3.2012, in civil suit no. 312/11, had vacated the exparte stay obtained by the Page No. 8 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
revisionist. The said order was challenged by the revisionist before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CM (M) No. 472/12 dismissed the petition of the revisionist with cost of Rs. 25,000/ vide order dated 17.9.2014.
5. It is the claim of revisionist that on the basis of unregistered agreement and GPA dated 13.7.2006, the said 6 biswas land i.e. 300 square yards plus additional and excess land of 1600 square yards, was sold back to the revisionist by respondents no. 1 and 2, being Directors of M/s Saj Property Pvt. Ltd. However admittedly these documents are unregistered. Admittedly the same cannot create any rights or entitlement in favour the revisionist as per Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (as amended by Act 48 of the year 2001 w.e.f. 24.9.2001), since no rights in the nature of part performance under section 53A can be claimed under an agreement to sell, if the agreement to sell is unregistered and unstamped. The agreement dated 13.7.2006, has been merely titled as "agreement". Perusal of the same, reveals that the aforesaid land was already sold by M/s Saj Property Pvt. Ltd. to the revisionist herein but the terms and conditions of the same have not been stated at all. There are some conditions regarding possession of the property mentioned. Admittedly there is no Page No. 9 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 62/13. Dr. Ramesh Chander Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Ahlawat & Others.
sale consideration. Once there was no sale consideration and the aforesaid documents are of no help to the revisionist for showing his ownership or possession of the said property then how from the allegations, any commission of criminal offence is made out, has not been made clear by the revisionist. There appears to be no criminality involved in the alleged acts. Hence there is no infirmity or illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the ld. Trial Court. Accordingly the present revision petition is dismissed.
6. A copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent back to the ld. Trial/Successor Court for information and consignment, immediately.
Announced in the open Court on 10.10.2014.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 10 of 10. Contd... ... ...