Delhi District Court
Yashpal Arora vs . Jyoti Parbha Arora Cr 129/19 on 4 June, 2019
Yashpal Arora Vs. Jyoti Parbha Arora CR 129/19
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY GULATI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
CR No. 129/17
Sh. Yashpal Arora
S/o Sh. S.D. Arora
R/o H.No. 916, Sector7,
Gurgaon, Haryana. ....... Petitioner
Versus
Jyoti Parbha Arora,
W/o late Vijay Kumar Arora
R/o H.No. C119, IIIrd Floor,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
......Respondent
Date of Institution : 27.04.2019. Date of Reserving Judgment : 04.06.2019 Date of Judgment : 04.06.2019
JUDGMENT in Revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the Order dt. 23.02.2019
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dt. 23.02.2019 passed by the ld. MM02 (N.I. Act) vide which the Result: Disposed off Page 1 of 5 Yashpal Arora Vs. Jyoti Parbha Arora CR 129/19 application of the petitioner u/s 258 Cr.P.C. praying for discharge of the petitioner in the case filed by the respondent herein, was declined.
2. The complainant before the ld. MM contended that the accused (i.e. Petitioner before this court) handed over a cheque of Rs. 10 lacs in discharge of his liability in terms of the Award passed by the ld. Additional Civil Judge, Hissar. The said Award was passed in the Suit for possession and specific performance of an agreement to sell an immovable property i.e. plot, which was filed by the Petitioner herein against the present respondent and two more persons.
3. The owner of the plot was late Sh. Vijay Kumar Arora i.e. Plot No. 2664, Sector 4, PartII, Hissar with whom the Petitioner had entered into an agreement to Sell.
4. Since Vijay Kumar Arora unfortunately expired, a suit was filed against his legal heirs i.e. wife Jyoti Parbha Arora (respondent herein), son Aryan Arora and mother Smt. Shanno Devi. Haryana Urban Development Authority, (HUDA) was also added as respondent no.4.
5. However, during the course of proceedings before the Result: Disposed off Page 2 of 5 Yashpal Arora Vs. Jyoti Parbha Arora CR 129/19 Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Hissar a compromise was arrived at between the parties (i.e. the Petitioner herein and respondent/complainant before the trial court) pursuant to which the petitioner agreed to handover Rs.12 lacs to the respondents no.1, 2 & 3 (i.e. respondents before the Civil Court) in consideration of which the respondents were directed to transfer the aforesaid plot in favour of the Petitioner herein. The compromise arrived at between the parties was not reduced into writing except that before the Court itself, statements were recorded.
6. Contention of the Petitioner is that the presentation of the cheque which was handed over to the respondents (in the civil suit) was subject to the condition that the respondents i.e. legal heirs of late Vijay Kumar Arora were to first get the 'plot' transferred in their own name because the plot still stands in the name of late Vijay Kumar Arora. Consequently, the Petitioner (who has appeared in person before this Court) submits that there was infact no legal liability on his part. But the same was to arise only once the respondents (before the ld. Additional Civil Judge) were to get the plot transferred in their own name. However, neither the Award of Result: Disposed off Page 3 of 5 Yashpal Arora Vs. Jyoti Parbha Arora CR 129/19 Ld. Additional Civil Judge nor the settlement recorded before the Court recorded any such undertaking. Infact, Haryana Arban Development Authority which is the agency for effecting the actual transfer and was added as respondent no.4, was given up by counsel for the plaintiff (Petitioner herein) during the course of compromise proceedings which fact stands recorded in the Award itself. As a matter of caution, the petitioner should have prayed for necessary directions against HUDA for giving effect to the transfer since now, the respondent/complainant is contending before the Trial Court that NOC's for the transfer have already been given and nothing more is required to be done on their part i.e. LRs of late Vijay Kumar Arora.
7. It has already been observed above that neither the Award passed by the ld. Additional Civil Judge nor any statement recorded before the Civil Court, records any such undertaking that the respondents had to get the plot transferred in their name, before the cheque was to be presented. If it all there was any such implied condition, the cheque itself should have been handed over to the respondents after the compliance of such condition.
8. The plea of the Petitioner raised herein has to be put to the Result: Disposed off Page 4 of 5 Yashpal Arora Vs. Jyoti Parbha Arora CR 129/19 complainant in her crossexamination and pleaded by way of defense, if petitioner does lead it.
9. In the understanding of the Court on the above said plea alone, Petitioner can neither be discharged nor can the ld. Magistrate be direct to exercise the power of stopping the proceedings u/s 258 Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, the Revision Petition stands disposed off without issuance of notice to the respondent.
11. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the ld. Trial court for intimation.
12. After necessary formalities, Revision Petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court. (Ajay Gulati)
Dated: 04.06.2019 ASJ05(West)Delhi
Result: Disposed off Page 5 of 5