Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Simmi Arora & Anr vs The State & Ors on 15 November, 2022

Author: Jasmeet Singh

Bench: Jasmeet Singh

                          $~43
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CRL.M.C. 5972/2022
                                 SIMMI ARORA & ANR.                                ..... Petitioners
                                              Through:           Mr Rajat Aneja and Mr Yash Gupta,
                                                                 Advs.
                                                    versus

                                 THE STATE & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                                               Through:          Mr Aashneet Singh, APP for State
                                                                 SI Mohit Singh, PS-Punjabi Bagh

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                              ORDER

% 15.11.2022 CRL.M.A. 23425/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 5972/2022

This is a petition seeking quashing/setting aside of the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Crl. Rev. No. 121/2022, whereby the learned Judge upheld the order dated 31.03.2022 directing framing of charges under Sections 420 and 174A IPC against the Petitioners.

It is stated by Mr Aneja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he is only challenging framing of charge under Section 174A IPC and restricts it to so. He is not challenging framing of charge under Section 420 IPC.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.11.2022 12:12:23

As regards petitioner No.1, Mr Aneja, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the FIR filed by the complainant wherein the only allegation against petitioner No.1 is contained in para 4 which reads as under:

"4. That after negotiation, the matter was settled for a sum of Rs. 16,15,000/- and a Bayana receipt was executed on 18.03.2006 and the complainants had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ as Bayana and the remaining payment was to be made latest by 18.04.2006. The said Bayana receipt was signed by Mrs. Simmi Arora R/o... Wife of the accused no. 1 and one Shri Ram Singh, as attesting witnesses and the Accused no. l as Seller and Complainant no. l as Purchaser."

The entire complaint is otherwise silent vis-a-vis the petitioner No.1. Mr Aneja states that the signing of the bayana receipt in no way can be construed to be making out ingredients of Section 420 IPC or attributing dishonest intention on the part of petitioner No.1, in the absence of any charge of conspiracy later. He states that the petitioner No.1 was neither the owner of the property nor a signatory to the sale deed nor made any representation that the property sold was free from encumbrances.

Issue notice. Mr Aashneet Singh, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by all modes including electronic on the petitioners taking requisite steps within one week from today, returnable on 22.02.2023.

CRL.M.A. 23424/2022

This is an application seeking stay of proceedings before the learned trial Court against petitioner No.1 only.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.11.2022 12:12:23

Issue notice. Mr Aashneet Singh, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

I am prima facie of the view that signing of the bayana receipt in no way can be construed to be making out ingredients of Section 420 IPC or attributing dishonest intention on the part of petitioner No.1 in the absence of any charge of conspiracy later. The petitioner No.1 was neither the owner of the property nor a signatory to the sale deed nor made any representation that the property sold was free from encumbrances.

For the aforesaid reasons, proceedings in FIR No. 193/2008, under Sections 420/174-A IPC, registered at Police Station-Punjabi Bagh, Delhi shall remain stayed against the petitioner No.1 only till the next date of hearing.

List on 22.02.2023.

JASMEET SINGH, J NOVEMBER 15, 2022 sr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.11.2022 12:12:23