Delhi High Court
Smt. Ramesh Kumari & Anr. vs M/S Alaknanda Properties (P) Ltd. on 14 December, 2010
Author: A.K. Pathak
Bench: A.K. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. Nos. 837-38/2006
% Judgment decided on: 14th December, 2010
SMT. RAMESH KUMARI & ANR. .....PETITIONERS
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Mr. Pankaj
Vivek and Mr. Harsh, Advs.
Versus
M/s ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES (P) LTD. .....RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Harsh K. Sharma, Adv.
for the respondent.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers No
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
A.K. PATHAK, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners have prayed that the complaint case no. 254/2001 titled as M/s Alaknanda Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Balbir Singh & Others pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, as also the summoning order, be quashed.
2. Factual matrix, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, is that the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 192/218/383/386/405/409/420/423/425/426/ CRL. M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 1 of 7 427/441/447/451/463/468/503/506 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 34 IPC wherein 104 persons, including the petitioners, were arrayed as accused. It was alleged that respondent had purchased large chunk of land situated in the village Kapashera from accused nos. 1 to 7 vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will etc. sometime in the year 1991-92. On 13th August, 1995, certain persons claiming themselves to be representatives of petitioner no.2 (accused no. 8) came to the land in question and threatened to take forcible possession, therefore, respondent was compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction in this court against the accused nos. 1 to 7 wherein interim ex-parte order dated 17th August, 1995 was passed whereby parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo. This order was served on the revenue officials also. In spite of this, accused nos. 1 to 7, in connivance with accused nos. 8 to 104, entered into fraudulent and dishonest sale transactions in respect of piece of land involved in the suit.
3. It may be noted here that accused nos. 11 to 24 and 104 are Revenue Officials; whereas accused no. 8 to 10 and 25 to 103 are the subsequent purchasers of the land at one or the other stage. Petitioner no. 1 has been arrayed as accused no.
76. It was alleged that accused nos. 1 to 10 and 25 to 103 CRL. M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 2 of 7 had entered the transaction of transfer of land in pieces amongst each other in connivance with each other, in order to deprive the respondent of its valuable ownership rights in the above-mentioned immovable property as also to defeat the suit filed by the respondent.
4. One of the directors of the complainant company (respondent) entered in the witness box as CW1, at the pre- summoning stage, in support of the averments made in the complaint. Thereafter, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered that a, prima facie, case was made out for summoning the accused nos. 1 to 10 and 25 to 103 for the offences under Sections 418/420/423 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and 506 (Part-II) IPC, consequently, ordered for their summoning. It may be noted that no reasons for forming such a view had been given by the Metropolitan Magistrate in his order, which, on the face of it is clearly bereft of reasoning.
5. Petitioners filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge against their summoning but the same came to be dismissed on 24th July, 2003. That is how petitioners are before this Court.
6. Relevant it would be to mention here that in the same facts accused no. 49 had approached this Court for setting aside of the summoning order and quashing of the complaint CRL. M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 3 of 7 by way of Crl. M.C. 4890/2005, which has been allowed by a Single Judge of this Court on 1st October, 2007, consequently, complaint has been quashed against the accused no. 49.
7. From the averments made in the complaint, gist whereof has been narrated in para 2 hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioners had no dealings with the respondent at any stage. They had not offered any piece of land for sale to the respondents. In fact, they are the subsequent purchasers. They have not even purchased the land from the main accused nos. 1 to 7. They have come in picture much later. They are not even related to accused nos. 1 to 7. Though it has been mentioned in the complaint that petitioners were aware about the fact that respondent had purchased the land in question from the accused nos. 1 to 7 but the fact remains that they were neither initially impleaded in the suit nor any material has been placed on record of the Trial Court to show that they had any knowledge about the sale transaction between the accused nos. 1 to 7 and respondent no. 2. Respondent had not annexed any document with the complaint to substantiate this allegation. No public notice had been given by the respondent in the newspaper informing the general public at large that they had purchased the land in question from accused nos. 1 to 7 or that the same is, in CRL. M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 4 of 7 fact, subject matter of the suit pending in this Court. All the allegations of connivance are presumptive, which is clear from the fact that all the subsequent purchasers en bloc have been impleaded as accused. Mere oral statement in this regard would not be sufficient, in the peculiar facts of this case.
8. That apart, I find that respondent had taken inconsistent stand at different stages with regard to the role played by the petitioner no. 2. In para 8 of the complaint, it has been categorically alleged that on 13th August, 1995 certain persons claiming to represent one Deepak Bhardwaj (accused no. 8) came to the site and threatened dispossession. It was further alleged that FIR No. 319/1995 dated 13th August, 1995 was registered under Sections 447/427/506/ IPC at Police Station Kapasehra regarding this incident. However, perusal of copy of the FIR shows that name of petitioner no.2 has not been mentioned therein. In the FIR, it has been alleged that one Parasram, resident of village Nathupur, along with some persons had trespassed the property on that day. As against this, while in witness box, CW1 has deposed that certain persons had trespassed the property at the behest of accused nos. 1 to 7. The name of petitioner No.2 has not been taken by her. This fact also makes a dent about the veracity of version of CW 1 regarding the connivance of petitioners with accused nos. 1 to 7. CRL. M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 5 of 7
9. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated & Ors. 2010 XI AD (S.C.) 265 to contend that at this stage complaint cannot be quashed, inasmuch as, the perusal of complaint supported by statement of CW 1 disclosed ingredients of offence under which petitioners have been summoned. I have perused the judgment and in my view judgment relied upon by the respondent do not advance the case of the respondent any further being in context of different facts.
10. In this case petitioners being subsequent purchasers have been impleaded. Petitioners had not even purchased land from accused Nos. 1 to 7. They have no relations with the accused Nos. 1 to 7. That apart, statement of CW1 regarding role of petitioners is not convincing. Petitioners had neither made any misrepresentation nor induced the respondent to enter into sale transaction, in respect of land in question, with the accused nos. 1 to 7. They were not even in picture when agreement to sell was entered into between the respondent and accused Nos. 1 to 7. Thus, ingredients of offence under Section 420 of the IPC are not attracted qua the petitioners.
11. Similarly, ingredients of offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC are also not attracted on the allegations made in the complaint qua the petitioners. As regards petitioner No. 1 is concerned, no such allegation has been made that she had extended any kind of threat to the respondent. With regard to petitioner No. 2, as already mentioned in the preceding para hereinabove, inconsistent CRL. M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 6 of 7 stand had been taken at different stages, inasmuch as, CW2 while in witness box has not averred that it is the petitioner No. 2 who had extended any threat at any stage. I am also of the view that ingredients of offence under Section 423 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners in the peculiar facts of the case. There is nothing to indicate that a false statement had been made by the petitioners in the agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney etc. relating to the consideration regarding transfer of land.
12. For the foregoing reasons, complaint case no. 254/2001 qua the petitioners is quashed.
13. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 14, 2010 ga CRL. M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 7 of 7