Delhi District Court
Ram Avtar Aggarwal vs Naresh Kumar on 4 May, 2012
ID No. 02406R0102152012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 30/2012
ID No. 02406R0102152012
Ram Avtar Aggarwal,
s/o Late Sh. B. D. Aggarwal,
R/o B15, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi - 24. ..........Revisionist
Versus
Naresh Kumar,
s/o Sh. Padam Singh, ..........Respondent no. 1
Deepti Sharma,
d/o Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, ..........Respondent no. 2
Madhur Jain,
S/o Sh. N. K. Jain, ..........Respondent no. 3
Anil Kaura,
S/o Sh. R. Kaura, ..........Respondent no. 4
Balbir Gambhir,
S/o Sh.Gurcharan Gambhir, ..........Respondent no. 5
State of NCT of Delhi ..........Respondent No.6
Instituted on : 04th May, 2012
Decided on : 04th May, 2012
ORDER
1. This revision is directed against impugned order dated 12.04.2012 passed by Ms. Mona Tardi Kerketta, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in a complaint case (CC No. 386/2005) whereby an application u/s156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed.
2. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. Shahzad Khan, Learned Counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record.
3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that Learned Ram Avtar Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. CR No. 30 of 2012 1/5 ID No. 02406R0102152012 Metropolitan Magistrate committed error by declining his request as no custodial interrogation was required. He submits that Learned Trial court failed to consider that investigation was required to be done as to who had forged document and who were involved. Learned Counsel for the revisionist referred "Amit Khera Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, 171 (2010) DLT 607" and "Radha Vs. State, 179 (2011) DLT 810".
4. In brief, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the complainant alongwith his sisterinlaw Smt.Sharda Gupta W/o Sh. Subhash Gupta is stated to be the owner in possession of the property no. N128, Greater KailashI, New Delhi consisting of Ground Floor, First Floor and partly constructed second floor and the entire chain of documents. It is submitted that the complainant learnt that some persons including respondent no. 1 were threatening to have floated the aforesaid property in question in the market for sale on the basis of some forged documents and to take over forcible physical possession from the complainant and his sisterinlaw, complainant lodged v complaints with the Police Station Greater KailashI, New Delhi. It is stated that without any right and tittle, one Sh.Raj Singh Malik, R/o 1, Maksoodpur, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi published a notice in the newspapers dated 29.06.2011 alleging his title in the property of complainant. Complainant learnt from the market that Respondent No.1 has allegedly sold the said property to Respondent No.2, who had also floated the same for sale in the market. Consequently a notice was issued to the concerned SubRegistrar, Delhi on behalf of the complainant not to entertain any transfer of tittle of the said property. It is stated Respondent No. 1 filed a Suit C. S. (OS) No. 1877/2011 tittle as 'Naresh Kumar Vs. Ram Avtar Aggarwal & Anr.', before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was listed on 03.08.2011, whereby Hon'ble High Court directed that the parties to the suit shall not create any third party interest in the property bearing No. N128, Greater KailashI, New Delhi.
5. It is further stated that Respondent No.1 had filed the copies of several false, forged and fabricated documents created by the Respondents in conspiracy and with common intention to take over the property of the Ram Avtar Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. CR No. 30 of 2012 2/5 ID No. 02406R0102152012 complainant and his sisterinlaw. These documents are GPA dated 16.04.1983 and agreement to Sell dated 06.07.1983 executed by Sh. Purshottam Nagesh Oak in favour of Balbir Gambhir, affidavit and Will dated 06.07.1983 of Sh. Purshottam Nagesh, Receipt dated 06.07.1983, Possession letter dated 06.07.1983 executed by Sh. Purshottam Nagesh Oak, Power of Attorney dated 16.02.2002, agreement to Sell dated 17.04.2001 and possession letter executed by Sh. Balbir Gambhir in favour of Narehs Kumar, Affidavit, Receipt and will dated 17.04.2001, Agreement to Sell dated 05.06.2011 between Naresh Kumar and Deepti Sharma, Sale deed and MOU dated 28.06.2011 and Letter dated 30.07.2011 of Deepti Sharma.
6. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 stated in the plaint in suit C. S. (OS) No. 1877/2011 that all the aforesaid original documents were in possession of Respondent No. 2. It is stated that Power of Attorney alleged to have been registered as Document No.7, Book No.I, Volume No.4, pages 1318 registered on 16.04.1983 by one Sh. Purshottam Nagesh Oak in favour of Sh. Balbir Gambhir reveals that the said document was registered at Pingla, District Medinipur Paschim, West Bengal and another Deed of Power of Attorney is registered as Document No.13, Book No.IV, Volume No.41, pages 2731 registered on 16.02.2002 by Sh. Balbir Gambhir in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar is also registered from the same place. It is submitted that on verification complainant learnt that the SubRegistrar Office at Paschim Medinipur was established in August, 2001 only and as such the documents which are alleged to be registered at the SubRegistrar Office at Paschim Medinipur in the year 1983 were forged and fabricated documents and consequently, the GPA dated 16.02.2002 is also forged and fabricated. It is learnt by the complainant that the division of District Medinipur as Paschim and Purva (West and East) took place only in January, 2001 and prior to that it was only Medinipur and not East or West Medinipur as stated in the plaint of C. S. (OS) No. 1877/2011 and therefore, on the face of it, document procured and filed by the accused persons therein are forged, false, fabricated and unauthentic.
7. It is stated that signatures of Sh.Purshotam Nagesh Oak and Sh.Balbir Ram Avtar Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. CR No. 30 of 2012 3/5 ID No. 02406R0102152012 Gambhir on all the alleged documents fabricated by the accused persons are forged in order to procure title documents and to doubt the right or tittle of the Complainant in the property in question. It is further stated that no seal or stamp of alleged registration of the document was affixed on any of the documents fabricated by the accused persons except the alleged sale deed dated 02.07.2011, which shows the existing multistorey building of complainant as a vacant plot. It is stated that Respondent No.1 & Respondent No.2 in furtherance of their common intention and conspiracy among themselves, falsely created a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 29.06.2001 after execution of sale deed between them on 28.06.2001. It is stated that Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 5 in collusion and in conspiracy with each other have helped and assisted the Respondent no. 1 to create the forged and fabricated document and have counterfeited the official seal of the SubRegistrar, Pingla, West Bengal so that they can fraudulently and dishonestly use the forged documents as genuine.
8. Observations cannot be applied out of context. A precedent is an authority only for what it decides on the material facts before the Court and while considering the precedents, the Court has to consider the 'material facts' of the case relied upon by a party and the 'material facts' of the case before it. In the first authority referred by Learned Counsel for the revisionist, itself it is observed that Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., was obliged to record the statement of complainant and his witnesses, if any, appearing with him. In para19 of second authority i.e. Radha's case (supra) referred by Learned Counsel for the revisionist, it is mentioned that the Magistrate to either direct the police to start investigation or proceed to examine the complainant on oath. In the present case, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has given an opportunity to the complainant to examine witness, while observing that "all the facts and circumstances of the case are within the knowledge of the complainant. The identity of the accused persons are also known to the complainant. There is not ground for directing the police to investigate the matter. It is noticeable that a Civil Suit with regard to property in question between the parties is already pending Ram Avtar Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. CR No. 30 of 2012 4/5 ID No. 02406R0102152012 adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court. It is also worthwhile to mention that an FIR with respect to property in question has already been registered and the case is pending trial before the Court. In view of the aforesaid observations, the request to refer the matter for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is declined". Admittedly a Suit No. 1877 of 2011 has been filed by the respondent no. 1/Naresh Kumar against the revisionist/Ram Avtar and Respondent No. 2 and a suit has been filed by the revisionist for seeking declaration "that the power of attorney and other documents executed by Respondent No.1 and other are forged". Indisputably, an FIR No.137/11, Police Station Greater KailashI has already been registered at the instance of revisionist Ram Avtar as regard the property in question. Considered as a whole, facts and circumstances shows that it is not at all a case, where police assistance is required for breaking the case. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that Learned Trial Court was justified in declining the request of the complainant to issue directions to police under Section 156 (3) of the code and finds no error in the impugned order. No interference, thus, is called for by this Court. Revision petition is dismissed. Copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent back to Learned Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the (Vinay Kumar Khanna) open court on Additional Sessions Judge04(SE) 04th May, 2012 Saket Court/New Delhi Ram Avtar Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. CR No. 30 of 2012 5/5