Delhi District Court
Farid Khan vs State on 23 January, 2024
DLST010078842021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-6, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 169/2021 (RBT 28/22 )
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Sh. Farid Khan
S/o Late Sh. Islam Khan,
R/o H. No. 27,Village Chandan Hulla,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Dinu
S/o Sh. Izab,
R/o H.No. 156, Village Chandan Hulla,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Rafik
S/o Sh. Chahath Khan,
R/o H.No. 156, Village Chandan Hulla,
New Delhi.
4. Sh. Israil Khan Nambardar,
S/o Late Sh. Fajju Khan,
R/o House at Khasra No. 64,
Village Chandan Hulla,
New Delhi.
5. Sh. Reyajuddin
S/o Sh. Chandmal,
R/o H.No. 156,
Village Chandan Hulla,
New Delhi.
........Revisionists
Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 1/ 12
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2024.01.23
17:32:36
+0530
Versus
1. The State of NCT of Delhi
New Delhi.
2. Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd.
First Floor, East Tower NBCC Place,
Bhishma Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Also at:
Land comprising of
Khasra No. 100/1, 100/2,
100/3, 237/1, 239/1,
Village Chandan Hulla,
Main Road, Mehrauli,
New Delhi.
3. District Magistrate (DM),
District South Delhi.
M.B. Road, Saket,
New Delhi.
4. Sub-District Magistrate (SDM),
Old Tehsil Building,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
5. Block Development Officer (BDO),
District South,
M.B. Road, Saket,
New Delhi.
6. Tehsildar,
Tehsil Mehrauli,
New Delhi.
....... Respondents
Instituted on : 17.10.2021
Reserved on : 07.12.2023
Pronounced on : 23.01.2024
Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 2/ 12
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2024.01.23
17:32:44
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present revision petition U/s 397 Cr.P.C. preferred by revisionists against the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by Ld. MM-01 (South) in case bearing no. 17495/2019 titled as "Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." whereby their application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR was dismissed. It is to be noted at the outset that Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 07.10.2021 had issued notice of the revision petition to State and respondent no.2 i.e., Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent) only. Said order has attained finality as it was not challenged further.
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
An application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. alongwith complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C. was filed before Ld. Magistrate on 26.03.2019. It was alleged therein that respondent M/s Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. had got prepared fabricated documents in its favour. It was alleged that the scheme of consolidation of village Chandan Hulla was announced on 01.11.2022 by then Consolidation Officer U/s 14 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 which was confirmed by then Settlement Officer on 17.04.2003. It was further alleged that as per the official record maintained by the concerned department, the file of Consolidation Scheme of Village Chandan Hulla was consigned/deposited by then Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer (CO) on 01.05.2003 and subsequently, the Settlement Officer (SO), ceased to perform his duties after 01.05.2003. It Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 3/ 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:32:52 +0530 was alleged that as per said finalization of Scheme of Consolidation, the subject land bearing Khasra No. 100/4 (0-5) and 101/2 (0-5) (hereinafter referred to as land in question) fell under Gram Sabha of Village Chandan Hulla and resultantly said Khasra numbers came to be recorded in its favour in Khasra Girdawari which was allegedly so reflected from the year 2006- 2007 till 2012-2013. It was alleged that subsequently the fabrication was done and Khasra No. 100/4 and 100/2 were shown in favour of respondent in Khasra Girdawari for the period of 2013-2014. Said forgery is being continued till now. It was alleged that said forgery and fabrication in possession was done to grab the public land. It was alleged that "Register Karwahi Chakbandi" was also forged/interpolated by the respondent and that respondent herein had managed to get sanction for construction of a housing society on the subject land from SDMC on the basis of forged/fabricated documents. It was further alleged that a complaint vide DD No. 32B dated 22.07.2018 was filed before SHO Fatehpur Beri however, no action was taken. Similar complaints were also filed before various other authorities including LG, DCP, BDO Gram Sabha, DM (Saket) and SDM (Mehrauli) however, no action was taken on those complaints. It was alleged that respondents committed offences U/s 420/465/466/468/471/474 r/w 120B IPC. It was further alleged that a complaint vide no 27B dated 03.03.2019 was filed before SHO, PS Fatehpur Beri whereas similar complaint was filed before DCP South vide diary no. 721 dated 05.03.2019 praying for registration of FIR for the offences U/s 420/465/466/468/471/474 r/w 120B IPC and to carry out investigation as per law. As no action was taken on those complaints, the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. alongwith complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C. was filed before Ld. Magistrate. After considering the report Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 4/ 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:33:00 +0530 filed by police alongwith material on record, Ld. Magistrate dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and fixed the matter for pre-summoning complainant evidence U/s 200 Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance for the offences U/s 465/466 IPC. That order is being challenged in these proceedings.
3. Arguments heard.
4. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionist that Ld. Trial Court committed an error in passing the impugned order as material on record was not properly appreciated. It has been submitted that it was clear from record that the land in question was being shown as belonging to Gram Sabha in Khasra Girdawari of Village Chandan Hulla till the year 2012-2013 and same was shown as belonging to respondent in Khasra Girdawari for the year 2013-2014 without there being any remarks in the coloumn meant for this purpose. It has been submitted that the file pertaining to order dated 17.05.2007 whereby the name of respondent was mutated was not traceable as no such order was in existence. It has been submitted that in case, such a change was made in the year 2007 itself, it was not clear as to why same was not immediately reflected in the Khasra Girdawari. It has been submitted that only thorough investigation can bring on record the entire conspiracy in which the complicity of officials of Revenue Department cannot be ruled out. He has prayed for setting-aside the impugned order and for directions to police to register the FIR under relevant provisions of law.
Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 5/ 12Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:33:08 +0530
5. Same has been vehemently opposed by Ld. Counsel for respondent on the ground that there was no illegality in the impugned order. It has been submitted that the revisionists have initiated several complaints/proceedings against it before different forrums and that all the orders have been passed in its favour as whatever has been done qua land in question, was done by the concerned Revenue Officials as per law. It has been submitted that this fact has been so stated by Revenue Department before Hon'ble Delhi High Court also that there was no illegality in the mutation done in Revenue record in its favour. It has been submitted that revisionists were pursuing these false litigations against the respondent only to blackmail it and to extort money from it. Prayer has been made for dismissal of revision petition.
6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record.
7. Relevant portion of impugned order is being reproduced below for ready reference:-
"Upon examining the contents of the complaint as well as the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, 1973 and considering the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, I find that revenue authorities are seized of the matter, as also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that parallel proceedings are pending before worthy District Magistrate (South) as well as worthy Finance Commissioner, as such it would be prudent to wait for outcome of these proceedings. In these circumstances, there appears no necessity to give directions for registration of FIR.Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 6/ 12
Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:33:24 +0530 In light of the aforesaid discussion, the exercise of discretionary power under Section 156(3) of CrPC is declined and the aforesaid prayer made by the applicant is rejected. On the basis of the complaint, a prima facie cognizance of offences U/s 465/466 IPC is taken as per as section 190(1)
(a) of CrPC, 1973.
Before parting with this Order, it is clarified that the option of police investigation under Section 202 of CrPC is kept open for consideration after examination on oath of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of CrPC."
8. The crux of case of revisionists is that the mutation of land bearing Khasra No. 100/4 (0-5) and 101/2 (0-5) falling in Village Chandan Hulla, Mehrauli, New Delhi apparently done in favour of respondent on 17.05.2007 was not proper and that entry to this effect in the revenue record has been interpolated/fabricated. He has tried to strengthen his case by submitting that the order dated 17.05.2007 was not traceable by the Revenue Officials and that despite passing of such an order, the land was continued to be shown as belonging to Gram Sabha in the Khasra Girdawari till the year 2012-2013. As per him, there was a conspiracy between the respondent and Officials of Revenue Department whereby the land belonging to Gram Sabha was grabbed by respondent.
9. During the course of arguments, it came on record that several proceedings/complaints pertaining to said land were being pursued by revisionists/other residents of Village Chandan Hulla before different authorities. Some of the proceedings with result thereof are being mentioned below:-
Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 7/ 12Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:33:32 +0530
(i) A petition U/s 21 r/w Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 was filed before the DM (South) questioning the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.05.2007 whereby exchange of land between respondent and Gram Sabha was permitted. During the course of hearing in that petition, DM (South) had directed the respondent to stop all construction activities on the land in question vide order dated 25.09.2019 which was later on withdrawn vide order dated 22.09.2020. Ultimately, that petition was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2021. A revision petition against said order preferred before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi has been dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2023. A Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13640/2023 has been filed against said order before Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is pending disposal;
(ii) Public interest litigations were filed before Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11601/2016 and 1874/2018 seeking directions to Revenue Officials to take away land in question from the possession of respondent and to hand over the same to Gram Sabha of Village Chandan Hulla. A status report dated 30.07.2018 was filed by SDM (Mehrauli) in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1874/2018 wherein it was mentioned that the name of respondent company was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of proper and valid sale deed after following due process of law/provisions of DLR Act, 1954. The PILs were dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 02.08.2019;
(iii) An order dated 04.09.2021 was passed by Revenue Department against the respondent U/s 30 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 8/ 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:33:39 +0530 and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 thereby restraining it from registering any deeds/documents or undertaking any further steps for sale/purchase of land in the Village Chandan Hulla on the ground that various irregularities and anomalies had come to its notice. Same was successfully challenged by respondent before Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10670/2021. A Letter Patents Appeal No. 573/2023 filed against said order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court was dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2023 of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court.
10. It is not in dispute that the file pertaining to order dated 17.05.2007 is not traceable till date. As mentioned earlier, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of revisionists on the ground that Revenue Authorities were already seized of the matter (it appears that same have been disposed of by now without any relief having been granted to the revisionists). It was also mentioned therein that the option of police investigation U/s 202 Cr.P.C. was kept open for consideration after examination of oath of the revisionists/ their witnesses U/s 200 Cr.P.C. This Court is unable to have a different view on this aspect as there is nothing on record to show any requirement of police investigation in present matter at this stage. Present case is primarily based on documentary evidence which can be produced by concerned Revenue Officials on being called by the revisionists in their pre-summoning complainant evidence. Current status of file pertaining to order dated 17.05.2007 and any inquiry initiated in relation thereto against official entrusted with the task of maintaining such record, can also come on record during pre-summoning evidence. In case, after Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 9/ 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2024.01.23 17:33:47 +0530 considering the material on record, Ld. Magistrate is of the opinion that investigation by police was required, same can be directed to be done U/s 202 Cr.P.C.
11. The revisionists have submitted that their application should have been allowed as allegations regarding commission of cognizable offence are there. It is settled law that for directions to register an FIR U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, it is not sufficient that the allegations disclose commission of a cognizable offence rather alongwith that it is also to be seen as to whether there is requirement of investigation by police. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as XYZ Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 Live Law (SC) 676, in which it was held as under:-
"Therefore, in such cases, where not only does the Magistrate find the commission of a cognizable offence alleged on a prima facie reading of the complaint but also such facts are brought to the Magistrate's notice which clearly indicate the need for police investigation, the discretion granted in Section 156 (3) can only be read as it being the Magistrate's duty to order the police to investigate."
12. So, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is the duty of Magistrate to order the police to investigate the cases where commission of a cognizable offence is prima facie made out and such facts are brought to his notice indicating the need for police investigation. As mentioned earlier, there is nothing on record to show the need for police investigation in this particular matter so Ld. Magistrate has rightly exercised his discretion in declining to order investigation by police u/s 156 (3) CrPC.
Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 10/ 12Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:33:54 +0530
13. It is settled law that while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, this Court can interfere only when the impugned order is perverse or untenable in law. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 wherein it has been observed as under :-
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court.The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
14. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order after considering all the relevant factors and there is no illegality so as to justify interference by this Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 11/ 12 Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:34:02 +0530 Court in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.01.23 17:34:09 +0530 Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta) Court on 23rd January, 2024 Additional Sessions Judge-06 South, Saket Courts, New Delhi Crl Rev. No.169/2021 Farid Khan & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Page No. 12/ 12