Delhi District Court
Rajinder Prasad vs Smt. Urmila Rani on 7 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE-09 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-001342-2020
Criminal Revision No.67/2020
1. RAJINDER PRASAD
2. ASHOK KUMAR
BOTH S/O LATE MOHAN LAL
R/O WZ-35, SHADIPUR,
NEW DELHI
.......REVISIONISTS
VERSUS
1. SMT. URMILA RANI
W/O JAGDISH KUMAR
R/O 29/22, EAST PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI
2. LALIT SRIVASTAV
W/O TARUN SRIVASTAV
R/O 3042/1, GALI NO.12A,
RANJEET NAGAR,
NEW DELHI
......RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 19.02.2020
Date of receiving by this court : 29.01.2021
Date of conclusion of arguments : 26.03.2022
Date of Order : 07.04.2022
ORDER
1. Present criminal revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 passed by Ms. Neha, Learned ACMM, West/THC whereby learned ACMM Crl.Revision No.67/20 Page 1 of 5 dismissed the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionists seeking registration of FIR against the respondents.
2. Briefly stated, facts as mentioned in the complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
are that late Sh. Har Chand was the grandfather of the revisionists, who expired in 1970. The properties of late Sh. Har Chand were inherited by his two sons namely Sher Singh and Mohan Lal. The revisionists are the sons of Mohan Lal, who also expired on 12.06.2009. A plot of land situated undearneath the property bearing No.3042/1, Gali No.12A, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi falling in Khasra No.17, Khewat No.31, Khatoni No.105 of Village Shadipur owned by late Sh. Har Chand was leased to one Dayanand and his wife Smt. Bhagwati for a period of 20 years vide a registered Lease Deed dated 10.12.1957. The said Dayanand and Smt. Bhagwati raised construction over the said land and were paying rent to late Sh. Har Chand. Vide Relinquishment Deed dated 10.01.1997, the said Dayanand relinquished his lease right in favour of his wife Smt. Bhagwati, who executed a Registered Gift Deed in favour of respondent No.1/Smt. Urmila Rani and Smt. Prabha Devi. On the request of Smt. Urmila Rani and Prabha Devi, an unregistered lease deed was executed on 07.12.1998 by Mohan Lal (since deceased) and Mukesh Kumar in favour of Smt. Urmila Rani and Prabha Devi.
3. Subsequent thereto, Urmila Rani and Prabha Devi partitioned the said plot of land amongst themselves and Urmila Rani/ respondent No.1 illegally sold her portion to one Tarun Srivastav without converting the land to freehold and without purchasing the land in question from complainants. Tarun Srivastav who was the purchaser, was well aware of the fact revisionists were the co-owners of the said plot of land. The revisionists thus, filed a complaint in this regard with the concerned SHO but in vain. Thereafter, revisionists filed a complaint before learned ACMM u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. r/w Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. for registration Crl.Revision No.67/20 Page 2 of 5 of FIR.
4. On receipt of the complaint, learned ACMM called for the status report from the concerned SHO. According to the Action Taken Report (ATR) dated 04.07.2018 filed by SI O.P. Mandal, PS Ranjit Nagar.
5. After perusing detailed ATR, the learned ACMM passed the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 dismissing the application of complaint filed U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and directing the complainant to lead evidence U/s 200 Cr.PC. Aggrieved with the said order, complainant has preferred the present revision petition.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the TCR along with documents annexed with utmost care.
7. It is urged by the learned counsel for revisionist that the allegations made in the complaint, if accepted constitute cognizable offences and hence, the order of the learned ACMM was not sustainable. It was also contended that the revisionists have no access to the documents executed by the respondents and the same can only be procured and verified in police investigation. Hence, the registration of FIR is necessary to recover the documents in possession of the respondents.
8. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Lalita Srivastav that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. The revisionists have made a feeble attempt to give a colour of criminality to a civil dispute. It is also contended that respondent No.2 is a bonafide purchaser of the property bearing No.3042/1, Gali No.12A, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi along with the land undearneath falling in Khasra No.17, Khewat No.31, Khatoni No.105 of Village Shadipur and had paid consideration amount of Rs.55,90,000/- to Smt. Urmila Rani/respondent No.1.
9. It is significant to mention here that none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1/Urmila Rani to contest the revision petition. Be that as Crl.Revision No.67/20 Page 3 of 5 it may, it is an undisputed fact that the plot of land situated undearneath the property bearing No.3042/1, Gali No.12A, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi falling in Khasra No.17, Khewat No.31, Khatoni No.105 of Village Shadipur was leased to Dayanand and Smt. Bhagwati. What was transferred to Smt. Urmila Rani by Smt. Bhagwati was only lease hold rights. The plot of land situated undearneath the property bearing No.3042/1, Gali No.12A, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi falling in Khasra No.17, Khewat No.31, Khatoni No.105 of Village Shadipur was never sold by the revisionists converted into freehold nor purchased by Smt. Urmila Rani/respondent No.1. Despite the fact that the gift deed executed by Smt. Bhagwati in favour of Smt. Urmila Rani and Prabha Devi transferred only lease hold rights of the said plot. Smt. Urmila Rani sold not only the structure built on the leasehold plot but also the leasehold plot undearneath the structure.
10. So far as Lalita Srivastav/respondent No.2 is concerned, presumption can be drawn on the basis of the fact that she was in possession of chain of documents w.r.t. the property purchased by her that she was well aware of the fact that the plot in question was a leasehold plot of land which was impliedly mentioned as freehold plot in the sale deed executed by Smt.Urmila Rani.
11. It is settled law that while deciding application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., the court has to apply its mind on the basis of the material on record and satisfy itself whether the complainant has pleaded sufficient material facts as to constitute the alleged cognizable offence. Alternatively, in the absence of any allegations of cognizable offence, the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for any order of investigation can be rejected and the court can take recourse to the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C.
12. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be invoked only if commission of cognizable offence is made out from the material on record. As already Crl.Revision No.67/20 Page 4 of 5 discussed above, the allegations which have been imputed against the respondents by the complainants/revisionists constitute cognizable offences and require thorough investigation.
13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 is set aside. Revision is, accordingly, allowed. Learned ACMM is directed to pass an appropriate order for registration of FIR. TCR be sent back along with copy of this order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 7th April, 2022 (HEMANI MALHOTRA) ASJ-09 (West)/THC/Delhi $ Crl.Revision No.67/20 Page 5 of 5