Delhi District Court
Sattar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SAVITA RAO, SPL. JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI01,
(SOUTH) SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Crl. Appeal No. : 374/2018
FIR No. : 497/17
P.S. : Sangam Vihar
In the matter of :
Sattar
S/o Sh. Ajmeri
R/o House no. 1678, Gali no. 20
I Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
...... Appellant
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
....... Respondent
Date of Filing : 01.10.2018
Date of Arguments : 01.11.2018
Date of Order : 03.11.2018
O R D E R
1. This is an appeal filed by appellant aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.2018 passed by Ld. Trial court whereby attachment warrant u/s 83 Cr.P.C. was issued for property bearing no. I20/1678, Sangam Vihar, New Crl. Appeal No. : 374/2018 1/5 Delhi.
2. FIR in the matter was registered against accused Basiran who had been declared PO vide order dated 25.5.2018 of Ld. Trial court. Proceedings u/s 83 Cr.P.C. had been initiated against her for attachment of abovesaid property which was belonging to accused Basiran. In compliance of the order dated 5.6.2018, the property was attached, which was followed by the filing of application u/s 84 Cr.P.C. by the appellant before Ld. Trial court, whereby he sought release of attachment of said property claiming himself as owner of the said property having been purchased the same from one Charanjeet vide agreement to sell, GPA etc. dated 5.5.1998. Application/objection filed by the appellant before Ld. Trial court was rejected. Threafter another application u/s 85 Cr.P.C. was moved by appellant before Ld. Trial court seeking release/restoration of sealed/attached property which application was also dismissed by Ld. Trial court vide order dated 29.8.2018. Though both the orders have been referred to and made part of the record in the appeal, filed by appellant but the prayer has been made only seeking the setting aside of attachment order dated 5.6.2018 and the subsequent orders have not been assailed.
3. It is submitted that the appellant had purchased the said property way back in the year 1998 and had already applied for installation of electricity meter in his name. He is absolute owner and in possession of the said property, however he had been residing at Dholpur, Rajasthan and as such, Crl. Appeal No. : 374/2018 2/5 he inducted his cousin sister namely Sona i.e. daughter of accused Basiran as care taker in the said property. When the police officials visited the said property of the appellant and inquired about ownership of the said property, they were informed of the same fact that accused Basiran has no right, title, interest or ownership over the said property, yet without proper verification and without ascertaining the facts relating to ownership, the attachment of property was made.
4. In terms of record, copies of documents were submitted on record by the IO which were obtained from the office of BSES having been filed in the month of May 2015 alongwith application by accused Basiran for installation of electricity meter at the same property. The documents were GPA, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit etc. dated 31.3.2012 in her name executed by one Charanjit. The electricity meter was also in the name of accused Basiran. Ld. Trial court noted that not a single document to show the possession of the applicant/appellant over the said property was brought on record. The claim of appellant that he had applied for electricity meter to be installed in the premises was also noted, as frivolous, since in terms of the documents placed on record by the appellant/applicant himself, his application was rejected by BSES. Ld. Trial court also noted that the applicant/appellant had stated that Basiran was his relative and he had inducted Sona, D/o Basiran as Care Taker. If while staying as Care Taker, Sona and Basiran had fabricated the documents and also got electricity meter installed in their name, then the Crl. Appeal No. : 374/2018 3/5 applicant should have approached the law enforcement agencies including police and the court to seek redressal against Basiran and Sona. Nothing of that sort had been done. Rather Sona had been appearing alongwith the applicant/appellant during the hearings which showed that the interests of applicant and Sona or Basiran were not against each other and the application, as noted, had been filed to hoodwink the law and to avoid the lawful attachment of the property of accused Basiran who was proclaimed offender.
5. Interestingly counsel for accused Basiran had also appeared in the matter on the date fixed for arguments before this court and had himself also addressed arguments in favour of appellant Abdul Sattar. No complaint, as stated, till date has been filed against accused Basiran for submission of the allegedly false documents with BSES authorities. The documents i.e. GPA, affidavit etc. in favour of appellant and in favour of accused Basiran are unregistered documents and both set of documents have been executed by the same person namely Charanjeet . The collusion between appellant and accused Basiran is apparent on face of record and as rightly noted by Ld. Trial court, it appeared to hoodwink the law and to avoid the lawful attachment of the property of accused Basiran.
6. It is also borne out from the record that accused Basiran now has been apprehended and supplementary charge sheet in the matter has also been filed with her production before Ld. Trial court and no application seems to Crl. Appeal No. : 374/2018 4/5 have been moved by her u/s 85 (3) Cr.P.C. till now.
7. In these circumstances, no merits are found in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant though, if so advised, may resort to the proceedings for declaration of his title with regard to property in question and if he succeeds, he may approach Ld. Trial court afresh.
8. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial court. Appeal file be consigned to record room. SAVITA Digitally signed by SAVITA RAO RAO Date: 2018.11.03 15:43:52 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Savita Rao) Today on 03.11.2018 Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI01(South) Saket Courts : New Delhi Crl. Appeal No. : 374/2018 5/5