Delhi District Court
State vs Raghubir Singh S/O Lt. Sh. Data Ram on 21 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. YOGESH KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 (SOUTH) :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Date of Institution : 16.03.2007
Arguments concluded on : 21.05.2012
Date of Decision: 21.05.2012.
Criminal Revision No. 27/2007
In the matter of :
STATE ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Raghubir Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Data Ram
2. Smt. Asharfi W/o Lt. Sh. Chhittar Singh
3. Hote Ram S/o Lt. Sh. Chhittar Singh
4. Sube Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Chittar Singh
5. Dhan Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Godhu Ram
6. Hari Chand S/o Lt. Sh. Chhittar Singh
7. Sukhbir Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Godhu Ram
8. Jitender S/o Lt. Sh. Godhu Ram
9. Partap Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Godhu Ram
All R/o : Village : Aali, Badarpur,
New Delhi. ..... Accused
ORDER:
1. The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint to the Commissioner of Police by Shri Firoz Ahmed & Ors. According to the complaint; the land of khasras no. 372 , 373, 374, 375 , 391, 392 , 405 and 408 of village Aali, PS : Sarita Vihar , Delhi was sold by the accused person to the complainants, by cutting of various plots. The cost of the common area(s) such as roads etc. was also charged from the purchaser of such plots. Thereafter the recorded owners of such plots were left with no interest in such land. The said land was later acquired by the Government of India and award no. 4/1998-1999 was passed by the LAC, SDM, Kalka Ji, New Delhi. The complainants allege that the accused person and their predecessor-in-interest (since deceased), malafidely filed an application before the SDM / LAC that the land was not sold. It is further alleged that the accused / respondents attempted to obtain compensation from LAC for the said disputed portion of land.
2. On page no. 7 of the charge sheet, it is stated that the deceased despite having obtained compensation, tried to get the compensation by deposing before LAC that there is no sale of land. The allegations are that Smt. Asharfi Devi through her three sons namely Hote Ram, Sube Singh and Hari Chand had done so. Similar allegations are made against Dhan Singh, Sukhbir Singh, Jitender, Partap Singh and against applicants / respondents Raghubir Singh, Chandra, Krishan and Smt. Antu Devi. It is also on record that Naib Tehlisdar in his statement u/s. 161 CrPC , have not given the details of the amount received by the respondents towards compensation for the disputed land. Rather the reply dt. 22.02.2000 of SDM, Kalka Ji, New Delhi, is to the effect that the compensation of 7 bighas and 6 biswas, have not been paid to the recorded owners. It is also stated that the matter regarding the disbursement of the compensation is still subjudice before the court of Ld. SDM, Kalka Ji, New Delhi.
3. It is further alleged by the counsel for the respondents that they had sold different plots in aforesaid khasras in the year 1984. However, in the year 1998-99 , the aforesaid khasra was acquired and SDM gave an award and withheld an amount of Rs. 10,99,376/- to be paid to different plot owners. It is averred that it may not have been in the liking of the respondents and as such they further applied to claim the compensation on the disputed land / plots they had already sold. However the applications are still pending and that neither any order has been passed on the said applications nor the amount amount of Rs. 10,99,376/- has been disbursed to the respondents. It is also averred that in the anticipatory bail application, the matter, even otherwise, was settled wherein the complainant had averred that an amount of Rs. 65,000/- ought to have been paid more to them as compensation. It is stated by the counsel for the respondents that respondents have deposited an amount of Rs. 65,000/- vide banker cheque dt. 14.8.2001 before the Ld. Registrar, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, it is stated that an amount of Rs. 10,99,376/- is still lying in the court of SDM and further an amount of Rs. 65,000/- is lying with the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which may be paid as a compensation to the plot owners.
4. It is further averred that the respondents even today do not claim any such amount either lying before the court of SDM or with the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi towards disputed compensation. Further it is averred that the respondent do not intend to claim the compensation to which the complainants are entitled to.
5. Further, it is alleged by the ld counsel for the respondents that even otherwise, the offence u/s. 193 IPC, when is coupled with section 120B/420 IPC; a complaint u/s. 195 CrPC is must and that the Ld. MM has rightly observed so while dismissing the complaint filed by the police vide its impugned order.
6. I have perused the record and judgments filed by ld counsel for respondents. State of Karnataka Vs. Hema Reddy & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1417, it has been observed as under :-
" I n cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Criminal P. C. and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in S. 195(1) (b), Cr. P. C. should be upheld" .
Further in case titled as Vinesh Vyas Vs. State through CBI, 167 (2010) DLT 408 , it was held that :-
" Thus, I am of the considered view that in the present case the cause of action for the prosecution of the petitioner arose in favour of the complainant only on the basis of production of the alleged forged documents during the course of investigation of the case against the incumbent against whom charges under prevention of Corruption Act were being investigated, it will certainly be a case which will be covered by Section 195(1)(b)(i), Cr.P.C. and would have to be tried in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 340,Cr.P.C., in view of Explanation (2) appended to Section 193 of IPC. Thus, the petition succeeds. Accordingly, the proceedings undertaken by the complainant against the petitioner and consequent framing of the charge are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file an application before the concerned Special Judge in accordance with Section 195, Cr.P.C., if they so decide or to the Special Judge to take cognizance suo motu, if he is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the complaint is required to be made against the petitioner, he may do so in accordance with law. With this liberty, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 27.10.2006 framing charges against the petitioner is set aside. The bail bond, if any, of the petitioner stands discharged.
Similarly in J. L. Goel & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jain & Anr. 172(2010) DLT 349, it was held :
" That the Court where the trial is going on has already lodged an FIR about missing / replacement of documents. If there was any effort to fiddle with the Court record, it was within the jurisdiction of that Court to order an inquiry and proceed against the person responsible for it. The Court of another MM who has not been sent a complaint by the trial Court cannot be in a position to hold an inquiry into the offence committed in administration of justice without proper complaint from the Court where this has taken place. I, therefore, consider that the learned MM could not have taken cognizance of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1.
In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal complaint No. 115/2007 under Section 109 / 120B / 466/468, IPC; the summoning order dated 30th November 2007 summoning the petitioners for offences under Section 109/ 466 / 468 / 120B, IPC; the order dated 19th November 2008 issuing process under Section 82, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner No.3; and proceedings consequent to the criminal complaint No. 115 of 2007 pending in the Court of Shri Lalit Kumar, MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi are hereby quashed.
8. Hence, in view of the aforesaid judgments and also in view of the fact that the applications for claiming compensation, as filed by the respondents, are yet to be decided by the Ld. SDM; that in view of submission that the respondents do not intend to claim compensation to which complainants are entitled to and further that the respondents are being prosecuted, primarily, for the offence under s/193 IPC for giving false evidence in the judicial proceedings, allegedly before the Ld. SDM, by filing applications for compensation before him for the land allegedly sold by them to the complainant, hence the allegations u/s. 420 IPC enamates out of the offense u/s. 193 IPC and hence cannot be split up. Thus, per judgments cited above, complaint u/s. 195 CrPC is mandatory in the present case and since not filed, the impugned order of the ld. MM cannot be said to be illegal.
9. Revision petition is thus dismissed. The revision file be consigned. TCR be returned along with copy of this order.
Announced in Open Court (Yogesh Khanna)
on 21.05.2012 ASJ02 / South Distt./Saket/N.Delhi
Saket Courts / New Delhi