Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar vs State on 11 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH.ATUL KUMAR GARG, ASJ - 01
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CR No. 14217/16
Sunil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Hawa Singh,
C/o E-1, Lower Ground Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-III,
New Delhi=110024
..... Revisionist
Versus
State
(NCT of Delhi)
....... Respondent
Date of Institution: 24.12.2016
Date of Arguments: 11.01.2017
Date of Judgment : 11.01.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Revisionist has assailed the order dated 07.12.2016 whereby his application under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC was dismissed by the Ld. MM. Revisionist had assailed the said order stating that the trial court has committed grave error of law by not appreciating the material facts available on Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 1 record. Order of the Ld. Trial court dated 07.12.2016 is bad in law and is contrary to the circumstances of the case and is therefore liable to be set aside. Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate the factum that whereabouts and residential address of the accused no. 1 namely Hawa Singh is unknown from past many years. Also, as per the ATRs filed by the concerned IO, accused no. 1 has not joined investigation since the revisionist has filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC and IO has failed to secure his presence and verify the veracity of allegations made against him. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that till date original GPAs have not been seized by the IO from accused no. 4 namely K.P. Singh, despite the fact as per ATR dated 17.11.2015 and 22.01.2016 submitted by the concerned IO, he has joined the investigation. He submitted that the police assistance is required to verify the death status of the notary namely Sh. O.P. Jain and also his functioning period as a notary public from the law and Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 2 Justice Department. Trial court has stated in its order that revisionist can himself depose about the alleged facts and can prove his case, but he stated that the revisionist has already put forth all the incriminating evidences before ld. Trial court on the basis of which it becomes a fit case where an FIR may be registered but despite of that ld. Trial Court has failed to take notice of the said factum and dismissed revisionist's application under 156 (3) Cr.PC. He further submitted that the revisionist has only Xerox copies of the concerned GPA's which he had received along with the reply submitted by the accused, during the course of proceedings of the civil suit filed, whereas the original copies of the said GPA'a in question are with accused no. 4 which can only be seized with the assistance of police officials. He submits that the order passed by Ld. MM dated 07.12.2016 be recalled and set aside and police be directed to register the case.
2. Upon filing of this revision petition, trial court record Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 3 was summoned. As per trial court record, a criminal complaint has been filed by the revisionist against Hawa Singh, Chand Ram, Suitra, Kaushalender Pratap Singh, Smt. Suchitra Pratap Singh, Om Prakash Sharma and Sasmita Gouda under Section 420/167/468/471/441/120-B IPC. Revisionist is the son of respondent no. 1. he claims to be disabled ex-official of Indian Army and retired at the rank of Captain in the year 2002. He submitted that the property bearing no. 52 and 53-A, measuring 260 Sq. yds (60x39.5), out of Khasra No. 54/18/2, situated in the revenue estate of Village Dhichon Kalan, Delhi in the abadi known as Vinobha Enclave Extn. CRPF Colony, Najafgarh, New Delhi was purchased by the mother of the complainant Late Smt. Savitri Devi. The mother of the complainant was expired intestate on 19 th January, 1997. He claims partition regarding some ancestral properties including the above said property against his father, mother, brother and sister. Thereafter, Hawa Singh by his Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 4 written statement stated that he has not sold the above said property and neither was trying to sell of the said property, further thereafter on 28.07.2004 ad-interim order was passed in favour of the complainant and against Hawa Singh. He further submits that in the year 2011 when he had inspected the above said property, he found some construction work was going on in the above said property pursuant to which the complainant filed the contempt proceeding, in reply to which the accused no. 1 Hawa Singh for the first time falsely via his reply and evidence by way of affidavit filed on 13.05.2011 stating that he had already sold the above said property to accused no. 4 Sh. K.p. Singh on 01.06.2004 vide unregistered GPA. Accused no. 4 in connivance with accused no. 1, 2 and 3 has executed a GPA in favour of his wife ie., accused no. 5 in the year 2010. Thereafter, this property has been divided in three parts by accused no. 4 and accused no. 5 in connivance with accused no. 1. He stated that out of three Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 5 pieces of the said plot, one of the piece of the plot was sold to accused no. 7 and third piece of the said plot is vacant and still is in their possession. He submitted that he had come to know that the property had been sold in the forged and fabricated manner because the font used in the GPA is courier new font which was invented only in the year 1996 in America and had been introduced later in India after 2000 and upon bare perusal of the said GPA it is very clear that an inkjet printer was used to print the GPA and such printer introduced much later in India which shows that the said document was prepared and forged in much later date but a previous years date was put on the said GPA. As such he filed the present complaint. Along with this complaint, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC was also annexed whereby the revisionist had requested to direct the police/ SHO of the PS to register the FIR. Ld. MM after hearing detailed arguments had dismissed the application holding that material/ evidence are within the reach of the Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 6 complainant which is evident from various RTIs and other documents on record. In case, there arises any need of police assistance for collecting evidence, same can be directed at the stage of summoning.
3. Dispute appear to be civil in nature between son and father and brother over property bearing no. 52 and 53-A, measuring 260 Sq. yards (60x39.5), out of Khasra No. 54/18/2, situated in the revenue estate of Village Dhichon Kalan, Delhi. Civil Suit has has already been pending. First revisionist shall enter into the witness box and then if the need arises, he may request to call the police for assistance. In every case, SHO cannot be directed to register the case particularly when there is no need to apprehend the accused or any requirement of custodial interrogation. Font as well as inkjet printer alleged to be introduced much later in India are the matter of trial.
4. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present revision petition. Consequent thereto, present Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 7 revision stands dismissed. Trial court record is sent back along with a copy of this order. Revision file is consigned to record room.
Announced in open court On 11th January, 2017 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) ASJ-01, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 8 Sunil Kumar Vs State CR No. 14217/16 11.01.2017 Present: Sh. Aditya Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Revisionist in person along with counsel. Arguments have been heard.
Vide my separate order dictated and announced in open court, present revision stands dismissed. Trial court record is sent back along with a copy of this order. Revision file is consigned to record room.
(ATUL KUMAR GARG) ASJ-01, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi Sunil Kumar Vs State CR NO. 14217/16. Page No. 9