Delhi District Court
Manish Kalra vs Mr. Thomson on 27 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE,
ADDITIONALSESSIONS JUDGE06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 204226/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Manish Kalra
S/o Sh. R.C. Kalra,
R/o 38, Pocket A8,
Kalkaji Extn., New Delhi ............ Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Mr. Thomson
S/o Sh. Sohan Misah
2. Smt. Geeta,
W/o Sh. Thomson,
Both R/o 38, Ground Floor,
Kailash Hill, New Delhi
3. State of Delhi
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi .........Respondents
CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 1
Reserved on: 11.01.2018
Pronounced on: 27.01.2018
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed under section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short MM) 04, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case C.C. nO. 29/1, police station Govind Puri titled as Manish Kalra Vs. Thomson & Ors. by which the Ld. Trial Court rejected the application U/s156(3) CrPC of the petitioner for registration of FIR against the respondent No.1 & 2
2. Petitioner herein filed the complaint against the respondent No.1 and 2 under section 156(3) CrPC prayer for registration of FIR U/s 406/379/420/451/453/454/457/468/471/500/506/34 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.1 & 2 for the offences alleged to be committed by them.
3. Brief facts as stated by petitioner are:
Petitioner/revisionist is the owner of the property bearing No.RZ3260/3637, measuring 450 Sq. Yards, out of Khasra No.403,404, 405 and 406, situated at Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 2 110019, which was purchased by the petitioner/revisionist from one Sh. Leeladhar, s/o Sh. Ram Charan, r/o RZ2060A/27, Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi110019 on 12.10.2010 by virtue of all necessary transfer documents like Agreement to Sell & Purchase, General Power of Attorney, Will, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Receipt etc. duly notarized by the notary public.
In the month of January 2011, the respondent No.1 approached the petitioner/revisionist with the offer to buy the aforesaid property of the petitioner/revisionist and accordingly after some negotiations between the petitioner/revisionist and respondent No.1, the sale consideration was agreed and settled as Rs.2,60,00,000/.
On 10.01.2011, the respondent No.1 alongwith one Mr.Karamveer, the proprietor of M/s Neeraj Properties, Mr. Jahoor and Mr. Yogesh, proprietor of M/s Lucky Properties came to the petitioner/revisionist with a predrafted Agreement to Sell and the said agreement was signed by the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 being parties to the said agreement and the same was also signed by Mr. Karamveer and Mr. Jahoor as witnesses. The respondent No.1 & 2 paid Rs.20,00,000/ as advance/earnest money as mentioned in the earnest money agreement itself.
It was agreed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 that he shall make the payment of remaining sale consideration amount i.e. Rs. 2,40,00,000/ to the petitioner/revisionist on or before 10.08.2011 CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 3 and on the said payment, the petitioner/revisionist will execute the necessary sale documents in favour of the respondent No.1.
At the time of entering into the Bayana Agreement dated 10.01.2011, the respondent No.1 had issued and handed over eight cheques total amounting to Rs.2,25,00,000/ to the petitioner/revisionist.
The petitioner/revisionist also asked the respondent No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/ more as agreed either in cash or cheque, as the case may be, on which respondent No.1 told the petitioner/revisionist that he is having only eight cheques in his cheque book and these cheques would not need to be presented as he shall make the entire payment of balance sale consideration on or before 10.08.2011, as agreed.
Both the respondent No.1 & 2 hatched a conspiracy with a view to grab the property of petitioner/revisionist and therefore the respondent No.1 in collusion with respondent No.2 intentionally and deliberately did not make the payment of remaining consideration amount of Rs.2,40,00,000/ by 10.08.2011 and even till then the respondent No.1 & 2 have also not made any efforts for encashment of the said cheques inspite of repeated requests and demands of the petitioner/revisionist. However, out of the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,40,00,000/, some payment approximately Rs.70 lacs were made to the petitioner/revisionist in installments by the respondent No.1 against the acknowledgement. The petitioner /revisionist specifically instructed the respondent No.1 to make payment of entire CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 4 balance sale consideration in one shot on any day on or before 10.08.2011 but the petitioner/revisionist had accepted the aforesaid payment in installments with clear cut instructions that in case, the respondent No.1 & 2 fails to make the entire payment of balance sale consideration on or before 10.08.2011, the entire earnest money shall automatically stand forfeited.
On 10.08.2011, the earnest money was forfeited and the earnest money Agreement dated 10.01.2011 stood cancelled/repudiated. Thereafter, the petitioner/revisionist also conveyed to the respondent No.1 that his entire earnest money has been forfeited due to the reason that he has failed to make the payment of the entire sale consideration within the agreed period i.e. upto 10.08.2011.
The respondent No.1 also duly agreed to the same. However, the respondent No.1 & 2 requested the petitioner/revisionist to letout the ground floor portion only on rent to the respondent No.1 & 2. The petitioner/revisionist could not understand the cunning mind of the respondent No.1 & 2 and under good faith, the petitioner/revisionist became ready to letout the ground floor portion of the aforesaid property to the respondent No.1 & 2 and accordingly, the possession of the ground floor portion was given to the respondent No.1 as per oral agreement through his wife Smt.Geeta i.e. Respondent No.2, as per his instruction on 23.08.2011 @ Rs.40/ per sq. feet, which becomes a sum of Rs.1,62,000/ per month excluding water and electricity charges and subject to security amount of Rs.50 Lacs. It was further agreed between CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 5 the petitioner/revisionist and respondent No.1 & 2 that a sum of Rs.50 Lacs shall be adjusted as a security amount of Rs.50 Lacs out of the aforesaid receipt in pursuance of Bayana Agreement dated 10.01.2011 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner/revisionist and subject to abiding the terms and conditions of the oral tenancy.
It was further agreed that the respondent No.1 & 2 shall not claim any other amount from the petitioner/revisionist out of the payments made by him to the petitioner/revisionist in pursuance to the Bayana Agreement dated 10.01.2011. The respondent No.1 & 2 also assured the petitioner/revisionist that they would vacate the tenanted portion on or before 22.07.2012 and also make the payment of the agreed rental against the receipt only, failing which the petitioner/revisionist shall have right to deduct the rent amount from the aforesaid security.
Respondent No.1 & 2 had made the payment of the agreed rent only for the period w.e.f. 23.08.2011 to 22.09.2011. In the meanwhile also, i.e. in the month of September, 2011, the respondent No.1 requested the petitioner/revisionist for further negotiation as per the market rate of the aforesaid property, but keeping in view his previous conduct, the petitioner/revisionist did not believe on his words and then, respondent No.1 & 2 requested and instructed the petitioner/revisionist to present any six cheques, out of the above mentioned eight cheques lying with the petitioner/revisionist only for the purpose to see the soundness and bonafide of the respondent No.1 & 2.
CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 6 At that time, the respondent No.1 & 2 assured the petitioner/revisionist that after the encashment of the said cheques and on satisfaction of the petitioner/revisionist, they would enter into fresh Bayana Agreement at the enhanced price of Rs.3,70,00,000/.
Believing upon above assurances and commitment of the respondent No.1 & 2, the petitioner/revisionist presented the six cheques for encashment, but all six cheques got dishonored and returned to the petitioner/revisionist with the remarks "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the respondent No.1 and thus all promises and assurances of the respondent No.1 & 2 proved false and all the deals in this regard stopped. The information of the dishonouring of the said cheques was duly given to the respondent No.1, on which he sought apology and showed his unwillingness/inability to buy the aforesaid property of the petitioner/revisionist.
However, the respondent No.1 and his wife Smt. Geeta i.e. respondent No.2 requested the petitioner/revisionist to continue their tenancy/licence qua the ground floor of the aforesaid property and further assured to make the payment of the agreed rent with the further assurance to vacate the said portion immediately as and when petitioner/revisionist would ask for the same.
However, thereafter, the respondent No.1 in collusion of respondent No.2 started avoiding the payment of the monthly rent on the pretext that he was facing financial constraints and requested the CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 7 petitioner/revisionist to adjust the security amount towards the rent. Thus, the petitioner/revisionist started deducting the monthly rental from the aforesaid security and also requested the respondent No.1 & 2 to vacate and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the aforesaid tenanted portion to the petitioner/revisionist, but the respondent No.1 & 2 again avoided the petitioner/revisionist on one or the other alse pretexts.
The petitioner/revisionist continuously requested the respondent No.1 and his wife Smt. Geeta i.e. respondent No.2 to vacate the aforesaid tenanted portion as the entire security amount also stood adjusted in the rent, but the respondent No.1 & 2 with their malafide intentions and ulterior motives always avoided the same on one or other pretexts and ultimately, they gave colour to their malafide intentions of grabbing the aforesaid property of the petitioner/revisionist, which came into the knowledge of the petitioner/revisionist on 08.12.2014, when petitioner/revisionist received a telephonic call from one Yogesh, proprietor of M/s Lucky Property Dealer, who asked the petitioner/revisionist, whether he has sold his aforesaid property to the respondent No.1 & 2. The petitioner/revisionist was stunned to hear the same and asked Mr. Yogesh why he is making such queries, on which Mr. Yogesh told that certain construction is going on in the said property.
The tenancy of the respondent No.1 & 2 qua the ground floor has already been terminated by the petitioner/revisionist orally and his possession on the ground floor became unauthorised and the CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 8 possession qua the half portion of basement including covered parking is not only unauthorised but also illegal.
The petitioner/revisionist immediately reached at his property and made a call at PCR No.100.The PCR officials stopped the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried by unauthorised occupants i.e. the respondent No. 1 & 2 persons. On inspecting the site, the petitioner/revisionist came to know that, the respondent No.1 & 2 persons with association of some other persons had broken the locks put by the petitioner/revisionist on the half portion of the basement and had stolen the valuable articles of the petitioner/revisionist from there, including two gas cylinder (commercial), five Tandoor (commercial), four big stove (commercial), two piece carpet (10X10), one table, one fan etc. The petitioner/revisionist again put his lock on the half portion of the basement as another half portion is under the possession of his other tenant Mr. Kunal Bhargava, who is also the director of M/s Bhai Papers Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner/revisionist went to police station Govindpuri, where the respondent No.1 and 2 sought apology for criminal house trespass as well as theft and for illegal construction thereby putting the lanter on the open area of the property. The respondent No.1 & 2 in the police station also assured the petitioner/revisionist to return him the entire goods whatever he had stolen and also to remove entire unauthorised construction as well as to vacate even the ground floor portion within 56 days.
CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 9 On 10.12.2014, the petitioner/revisionist again visited his aforesaid property and found that the respondent No.1 & 2 person have again broken the locks of the petitioner/revisionist and put his own locks in the basement portion lying with the petitioner/revisionist and trespassed into the said portion which was exclusive possession of the petitioner/revisionist. Not only this, the respondent No.1 & 2 persons also hanged a signboard of church with his malafide intention to give the communal colour to the same. The petitioner/revisionist immediately dialed PCR No.100 and the PCR officials referred the matter to the local police of PS Govindpuri. At about 5.00 PM, the petitioner/revisionist received a telephone at his mobile No.9899883937 from landline No.29980049 and the caller disclosed himself as IO and told the petitioner/revisionist that being the civil matter, he will not provide any legal remedy to protect the petitioner/revisionist's property and life. Thereafter, even SHO, PS Govindpuri contacted the petitioner/revisionist and restrained the petitioner/revisionist from visiting his own property as well as in the police station till his further directions. Finding no alternative, the petitioner/revisionist filed a written complaint dated 12.12.2014 to the SHO, PS Govindpuri, Delhi vide DD No. 47B dated 12.12.2014 and other higher police authorities.
On the aforesaid complaint of the petitioner/revisionist, no action was taken by the police and thereafter, the petitioner/revisionist asked the SHO, PS Govindpuri, on 09.01.2015, about the progress/status of his complaint. The local police of PS Govindpuri is CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 10 fully aware that the respondent No.1 & 2 persons have committed the criminal offence of criminal house trespass, theft and raising illegal construction without any locus and power and even without caring the safety of the public. Even both the respondent No.1 & 2 have threatened the petitioner/revisionist that in case he will come to the aforesaid property, he shall be put to end. Further the respondent No.1 & 2 person also defamed the name and goodwill of the petitioner/revisionist, the respondent No.1 & 2 person even spread the false rumour in the entire area that the petitioner/revisionist had sought apology thereby caught his ear and if the petitioner/revisionist will come, they would cut the body of the petitioner/revisionist into pieces and throw to the dogs. However, the local police of PS Govindpuri refused to register the FIR against the respondent No.1 & 2 persons. Rather polce instructed the petitioner/revisionist to bring the orders from the court for registration of the FIR.
After the refusal of the SHO to register the FIR, the petitioner/revisionist sent a written representation U/s 154(3) CrPC dated 15.01.2015 to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Deputy Commissioner of Police, SouthEast District, Delhi and also to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi, thereby requesting them to issue necessary directions to the SHO, PS Govindpuri to lodge necessary FIR against the respondent No.1 &2 persons and their other associates, but no action was taken by the police against the respondent No.1 & 2 persons and even the concerned dealing senior police officer also refused to register the FIR on the complaint of the CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 11 petitioner/revisionist.
Petitioner/revisionist has also served a legal notice dated 15.01.2015 upon the respondent No.1 & 2 persons calling upon them to vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the property in question alongwith the stolen articles/goods of the petitioner/revisionist, but the respondent No.1 & 2 persons, instead of complying with the requisites of the said notice, started extending threats to get the petitioner/revisionist killed and to implicate him in false and frivolous cases. Besides this, the respondent No.1 & 2 persons have also claimed their relations with the senior police officer of Delhi Police and therefore, the petitioner/revisionist filed a complaint before the Joint Commissioner of Police regarding the said false claims made by the respondent No,1 &
2. That, the respondent No.1 & 2, in collusion with their associates, have committed the offences of criminal breath of trust, house trespass, house breaking and theft of the valuables/articles of the petitioner/revisionist and criminal intimidation. Thus, the respondent No.1 & 2 persons have committed the offences punishable u/s 406/379/420/451/453/454/457/468/471/500/506/34 of Indian Penal Code and also other relevant sections, under which the respondent No.1 & 2 persons are liable to be booked and prosecuted in accordance with law, but the concerned police officials of PS Govindpuri despite lodging of written complaints and reminders are not registering the necessary FIR against the respondent No.1 & 2 persons for the offences committed by CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 12 them.
4. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under section 156 (3) CrPC praying for directing the SHO, PS Govind Puri, Delhi to lodge a case/FIR under sections 406/379/420/451/453/454/457/468/471/5 00/506/34 of IPC against the accused persons/respondent herein, arrest them and initiate investigation in the matter.
5. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court vide order dated 31.07. 2015 rejected the application under section 156 (3) CrPC of the petitioner on the ground that the matter is purely civil in nature. Being aggrieved from the impugned order dated 31.07. 2015, the present revision petition has been filed.
6. The petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is against the law and facts and is biased and is causing prejudice to the petitioner. It has further been averred that the impugned order is bad in law as it is a nonspeaking order and is therefore not sustainable under the law.
7. The petitioner contended that the impugned order reveals error apparent on the face of law, record and facts as the learned trial court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in judicial manner and rather has used it in mechanical manner.
8. The petitioner has contended that before deciding the CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 13 application under section 156 (3) CrPC, Learned trial court is supposed to see whether any cognizable offence is made out or not and the court cannot presume the thing which would likely to come on record after enquiry/investigation by the police official.
9. The petitioner has stated that the impugned order dated 31.07 to 2015 is mechanical, unjust and not sustainable as learned trial court failed to consider that in the judgement of Babulal versus State of Rajasthan, 2009 Cr. LJ, where it has been held that there is bounden duty upon the trial court to register an FIR if the case discloses commission of a cognizable offence. From the complaint filed in the police station, cognizable case is made out but learned trial court did not appreciate any of such arguments.
10. Learned trial court overlooked the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited as (2006) 1 SCC 627, Mohd. Yusuf vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt) and Others, where it has been held that it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register an FIR when investigation under section 156 (3) is directed by the magistrate, even when the magistrate explicitly doesn't so. In present case status report was called and the police officials without investigating anything just filed a report without calling/examining the petitioner.
11. The petitioner has averred that there are so many persons involved in the said act of cheating and forgery committed by respondent no. 1 and their associates and the petitioner is not aware regarding the CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 14 same. The petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court also failed to appreciate the judgement of Allahabad High Court cited as Phool Singh versus state of UP and others, 2007 (2) Crime 682 (All) where it was held that magistrate is under legal duty to direct police to register FIR and investigate the case where application disclosed cognizable offence.
12. The petitioner has contended that the report filed by the police is in contradiction with the complaint of petitioner and learner trial court failed to appreciate the compliance of provisions under section 154 (3) CrPC. The learned trial court only on the basis of ATR decided that matter is simple in nature without any proper enquiry and investigation.
13. The petitioner has submitted that learned trial court has wrongly interpreted the judgement cited as M/s Skipper Beverages versus State, 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 67 as in the said case the complainant was the company and accused were the employees and thus learned MM had come to the conclusion that there was no need to send the matter to police for investigation due to the reason that the complainant was a company and it was very easy to collect the information of the employee and other data but in the present case petitioner is an individual and he is not in possession of evidence to prove his case and same may be collected after custodial interrogation of the accused persons.
14. The 2nd Judgment relied upon by the learned trial court is CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 15 Gulab Chand Upadhyaya versus State of UP, 2002 Crl.LJ 2907 and in that case application under section 156 (3) CrPC was dismissed on the ground that complainant knew all the accused and witnesses also. No allegation of any property having been taken away by accused, no recovery of property needed, no evidence was required to be collected and preserved and thus no investigation by the police was required but the fact and circumstances of this case are entirely different from the said case.
15. The petitioner has contended that similarly the reliance on Sukhwasi versus state of UP, Ram Babu Gupta {2001 (43) ACC201, Aleque Padamsee versus Union of India, 2007 Crl.LJ, 3729 (SC) and Rajinder Singh Katoch versus Chandigarh Administration does not apply to the facts of his case.
16. The petitioner has prayed for allowing the present petition and directing the SHO PS Govind Puri to register an FIR against the respondent no.1 and 2.
17. Detailed arguments were advanced by learned counsels for parties.
18. Arguments heard. Record perused carefully.
19. It is well settled principle of law that when criminal complaint is filed before the Magistrate and after perusing the same, the Magistrate CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 16 finds that it discloses a cognizable offence having been committed, he may choose to enquire into the complaint himself by taking cognizance in exercise of his powers under section 190 Cr PC and proceed to enquire into it in accordance with the procedure laid down in sections 200 and 202 Cr PC. In the alternative, he may refer the complaint to police under section 156 (3) Cr PC for investigation. In case the Magistrate gives direction for investigation of the matter, he will stay his hand till report under section 173 Cr PC is filed by the police and thereafter further process of law would follow.
20. In the case titled as Devender Kumar versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and others decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 28.10.2014, it was held that "The Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in routine and casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set in motion on mere asking of a party. There has to be some substance in the complaint filed written only if it appears that the allegations are serious enough and establish the commission of cognizable offence requiring thorough investigation by the police, and an FIR should be ordered to be registered. The reliance by the petitioner on the law laid down in Mohd. Yusuf vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt) and Others, (supra) is unfounded as the same applies when investigation under section 156 (3) is directed by the magistrate but no such direction was given by learned MM to the police in the present case.
21. I have gone through the impugned order of the learned trial CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 17 court. Learned MM has rightly appreciated the judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as M/s Skipper Beverages versus State, 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 67 and Gulab Chand Upadhyaya versus State of UP, 2002 Crl.LJ 2907, passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
22. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Aleque Padamsee versus Union of India, 2007 Crl.LJ, 3729 (SC) observed that when the information is laid with the police, but no action is taken in that behalf, the complainant can file complaint under section 190 read with section 200 CrPC before the magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in chapter XV of CrPC.
23. In the case in hand, the entire case of the petitioner is based on documentary as well as oral evidence which is well within the knowledge and access of the complainant and the same can be produced by him during the course of deposition as well as of his witnesses. The complainant/petitioner has not referred to a single document which is not within his possession or power. The documents which are not in the power and possession of the petitioner may be summoned by him from the office of the Land/Revenue Department which maintains the records of the ownership of the property in question.
24. If it appears to the learned trial court to get the matter enquired or investigated, learned trial court may take help of the police or other CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 18 authorities in exercise of powers under section 202 CrPC. Learned trial court is not precluded from making any enquiry or investigation if there is any requirement.
25. Learned counsel for petitioner had argued that learned MM had no power to convert complaint under section 156 (3) to complaint case under section 200 CrPC on its own.
26. In the matter of Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar and Ors. (1997) SCC 476, it was held that the Magistrate is not always bound to pass an order for registering of the case and investigation after receipt of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. disclosing a cognizable offence. The Magistrate may use his discretion judiciously and if he is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, it will be proper to treat the application as a complaint case then he may proceed according to the procedure provided under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. Further in the matter of Sukhwasi Son Of Hulasi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 September, 2008 CriLJ 472, it was observed that it is not always mandatory in each and every case for the Magistrate to pass an order to register and investigate on receipt of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is perfectly within the judicial power to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order.
27. It is also clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Suresh Chandra Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 19 2001 (42) A.C.C. 459, that a Magistrate has the authority to treat an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint.
28. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.07.2015 passed by learned MM04, SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith Trial Court Record.
Announced in the open court on 27.01.2018 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) Additional Sessions Judge06, South East,Saket Courts, New Delhi CR No. 204226/2016 Manish Kalra v. Thomson & Ors. 20