Delhi District Court
Mukesh Ralhan vs State on 13 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL RIVISION No. 119/3
IN THE MATTER OF :
Mukesh Ralhan
S/o Lt. Sh. Harish Chander
R/o M235, 2nd Floor, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi 110018
............PETITIONER
versus
1 State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi
2 Surinder Pal Singh
S/o Not Known
Prop. Of M/s K.B. Infrastructure
Shop No. 63, LSC, DDA Market,
CBlock, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi - 110018
Also at:
R/o C1/128, Janak Puri,
New Delhi 110058
........RESPONDENTS
CR No. 119/3 Mukesh Ralhan vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 1/7
DATE OF FILING : 01.12.2014
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 13.02.2015
DATE OF ORDER : 13.02.2015
O R D E R
1 This is a revision petition filed by petitioner Mukesh Ralhan against the impugned Order dated 14.10.20104 passed by the Ld. CMM thereby dismissing the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
2 The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C alongwith application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C against the respondent no. 2 Surender Pal Singh with allegations that the respondent no. 2 represented himself to be the proprietor of M/s K.B. Infrastructure running the businesses of builder and developer in West Delhi. Further that the respondent represented himself to be the owner in possession of second floor without roof rights measuring 189 Sq. Meters in property bearing no. A1/132, Janak Puri, Delhi. Further that the complainant and his daughter are owners of flat no. T5501, Parsavnath Paramount near Subhash Nagar Metro station Tilak Nagar, Delhi. Further that it was agreed between the parties that above mentioned two properties shall be swapped by them and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/ shall be paid by the complainant to the accused and agreement dt. 23.09.2013 was executed in this regard. A sum of Rs. 60,00,000/ has already CR No. 119/3 Mukesh Ralhan vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 2/7 been paid to the respondent but the respondent failed to execute the title documents and delivering of possession on one pretext or other. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that 25% share of the property has already been sold to one Rajan Bhasin by the respondent much prior to execution of agreement with complainant. Further that the complainant has come to know that the respondent has sold the said property to several persons after taking sale consideration and he has also denied to return the money.
3 Ld. Trial Court vide order dt. 14.10.2014 dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C and called upon the complainant to lead his presummoning evidence.
4 By way of present petition, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Order is liable to be setaside as the said order is bad in law and not sustainable. Further that the trial court has not considered the material facts involved in the case. Further that the respondent has cheated the complainant and having criminal intentions from the very inceptions as he has neither given the property nor returned the heavy amount of Rs. 60,00,000/ procured from the complainant under false representations. During course of arguments, it is argued that the respondent no. 2 is a land grabber and habitual offender. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has placed on record copy of other FIR and CR No. 119/3 Mukesh Ralhan vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 3/7 complaint lodged against the respondent no. 2 by other persons and also the copy of search report of the property mentioned above (A1/132) showing that several objections have been lodged in the office of SubRegistrar against said property. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position to unearth the truth and to collect and produce all the incriminating evidence against the respondent, so, police investigation is necessary.
5 Notice of the petition was sent to the respondents and appearance has been made by respondent no. 2 The respondent no. 2 has controverted the arguments advanced by the counsel for petitioner and submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 has relied upon judgments of superior courts in 92 (2001) DLT 217 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court), 2002 (2)Crimes 488, 2002 (2) (Hon'ble Allahabad High Court), 2002 (2) Crimes 496 (Hon'ble Jharkand High Court), 2010 (3) JCC 1972 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) and AIR 2008 SC 251 in support of his contentions.
6 I have heard ld. counsel for petitioner, Ld. Addl. PP for State, respondent no. 2 and carefully perused the record in the light of submissions made before me.
7 The allegations against respondent no. 2 are regarding CR No. 119/3 Mukesh Ralhan vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 4/7 cheating forgery and criminal intimidation. As per allegations, the respondent had already entered into agreement to sell with other persons before entering into agreement with the complainant in respect of property in dispute. The agreement with the petitioner was in respect of entire second floor without roof rights of free hold built up property no. A1/132 built on plot no. 132 and a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/ was also given to the respondent as balance consideration after adjustment of the property pertaining to complainant i.e Flat no. T5501, Parsavnath Paramount near Subhash Nagar Metro Station, Tilak Nagar. It is not disputed during arguments that the respondent had already entered into an agreement with one Rajan Bhasin in respect of 25% undivided share in above mentioned property i.e A1/132, though, it is submitted on behalf of respondent that the said agreement had already been cancelled before entering into agreement with the present complainant. The complainant has placed on record copy of the report/reply received by him under RTI from the office of SubRegistrar concerned disclosing that objections in respect of above mentioned property were pending. Further the complainant has also placed on record copy of one search report of above mentioned property prepared by one Amit Tanwar, Advocate, which discloses that objections filed by one Mr. Hari Singh were also pending with the SubRegistrar concerned apart from the objections filed by present petitioner and above mentioned Rajan Bhasin which were subsequently withdrawn. Further the CR No. 119/3 Mukesh Ralhan vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 5/7 complainant has produced copy of FIR No. 357/14 PS Vikas Puri u/s 420 IPC filed by one Vipin Batra against the present respondent no. 2 regarding some dispute over immovable property. Further the complainant has also filed copy of one complaint dt. 10.04.2013 filed by one Smt. Harmohinder Bhatia against the respondent to the Commissioner of Police in respect of some dispute over user of immovable property.
8 There are specific allegations in the complaint regarding manipulation of documents by the respondent and cheating by executing different agreements with different persons in respect of same property against heavy consideration. The property as well as money, both are with the respondent. It is clear from the facts that the dispute is not only between the complainant and the respondent but some other persons are also involved in the same. The case in hand is not a simple case of violations of terms of agreement, rather it involves multiple cheating and manipulation of documents. The dispute cannot be termed simply as of civil nature and criminal element is also there in existence. Moreover, it is well settled law that civil and criminal proceedings can very well coexists and there is no bar in initiation of criminal proceedings if civil remedy has already been availed. The complainant himself is not in a position to unearth the truth and in my opinion, police investigation is necessary in this case and there is likely hood of miscarriage of justice if the matter is not investigated through CR No. 119/3 Mukesh Ralhan vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 6/7 police.
9 In view of above discussion, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by ld. trial court is not sustainable and likely to cause miscarriage of justice. The judgments relied upon by ld. counsel for respondent are not helpful to him being distinguishable on facts. Hence, the impugned order dt 14.10.2014 is set aside and SHO concerned is directed to register an FIR under appropriate sections of law and to submit a report before the Ld. trial court after proper investigation from all the possible angles.
One copy of this order be sent to SHO concerned for compliance and TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this Order.
File of the revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL)
TODAY i.e.ON 13th February 2015 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI
13.02.2015
CR No. 119/3 Mukesh Ralhan vs. State & Anr. PAGE No. 7/7