Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 15 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
Cr. Rev.No. 38/13
Rakesh Kumar
s/o Late Ram Singh
R/o H.No. 163, Village Bhalaswa,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi
..... Revisionist
Vs.
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Anil Kumar
s/o Sh. Ishwar Singh
3. Sh.Ishwar Singh
s/o Sh. Kanwar Singh
(Both 2 & 3 r/o H.No.13,
Village Bhalaswa,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
4. Sh.R.S.Beniwal, advocate. ..... Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 26.04.2013
Date when final arguments concluded: 14.01.2015
Date of pronouncement of order : 15.01.2015
ORDER
Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 1 of10
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dtd. 14.03.13 passed by Mr. Sunil Kumar, thethen Ld. MM vide which complaint was dismissed on merit without summoning the accused.
2. Facts are that complainant Rakesh Kumar is the son as well as legal heir of his deceased father Ram Singh who was the recorded owner cobhumidar in actual, physical cultivator possession of 1/6th undivided share in ancestral agricultural land allotted by the Bhudan Yag Samiti on 11.09.55 to the grandfather of complainant comprising of khasra no. 291(416), 292(416), 313(416), 314(416), 315(4
16), 316(416), 317 (416), 318 (416), 324 (416), 325 (416) as per khatoni records for the year 199192 village Bhalaswa, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. On the basis of report dtd. 12.07.99 prepared by the Halka Patwari of village Bhalaswa, the SDM Revenue Assistant initiated proceedings u/s 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act'1954 against the father of the complainant and also against other cobhumindars/owners except khasra no. 318(4
16), 324(416) and 325(416), as per khatoni for the year 199899. The SDM/RA, passed a conditional order Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 2 of10 on 01.09.1999 directing Sh. Ram Singh father of the complainant (now deceased as well as cobhumidars) to convert the suit land back to agricultural use within a period of three months. Thereafter, SDM/RA, accordingly, proceeded to pass a final order on 17.12.1999, thereby vesting the land of the complainant's father and other cobhumidars with the gaon sabha. Being aggrieved by the said orders dtd. 01.09.1999 and 17.12.1999, passed by the SDM/RA, Ram Singh (deceased father of complainant) alongwith other cobhumidars filed an appeal u/s 185 of the DLR Act before the Deputy Collector and vide order dtd. 05.01.05, the appeal of the said persons was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Sh. Ram Singh (now deceased) and other cobhumidars thereafter, filed a revision petition u/s 187 of DLR Act before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi which was also dismissed on 21.03.06. Sh. Ram Singh expired on 11.03.06, survived by the complainant herein and his four brothers. The accused persons prepared, produced and fabricated/forged and fictitious Will dtd. 18.01.01 of Ram Singh and Sale deed dtd. 31.08.05 executed by Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 3 of10 Ram Singh in favour of Anil Kumar by allegedly putting forged thumb impression of Sh. Ram Singh (now deceased). That on 11.08.09, the accused persons threatened the complainant and tried to attack upon the complainant with arms weapon and also threatened to kill and to dispossess the complainant from the above said land on the basis of the said Will. The complainant called the PCR and filed written complaint to that effect against the proposed accused no. 1& 2. That the complainant even made a written complaint dtd. 24.08.09 to the concerned PS Pitampura and repeatedly pursued the matter.
3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was not heard by the Ld. MM before passing the order. The second ground is that his client had moved an application u/s 73 of Indian Evidence Act for comparing the thumb impressions of his father Ram Singh appearing on impugned sale and will deeds with other documents but that application was not decided and the Ld. MM decided the complaint without passing any order on that application.
On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Rana, counsel for Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 4 of10 respondents no.2 and 3 argued that the Ld. MM had heard the petitioner not only once but 56 times. He conceded that Ld. MM did not decide the application u/s 73 Indian Evidence Act before deciding the complaint finally.
4. Ld. counsel for both parties submitted that they have no objection if the impugned order is set aside directing the trial court to decide the complaint afresh by getting compared the thumb impressions of Ram Singh appearing on impugned sale and gift deeds with admitted documents.
5. Ld. counsel for petitioner argued that Ram Singh had filed an appeal in the court of Dy. Commissioner which was decided on 05.01.01. Ram Singh had filed the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act and another application u/o 26 r 9 CPC in that appeal on 29.02.2000. On those applications also, the thumb impressions of Ram Singh are appearing. The counsel further submitted that there are two vakalatnamas thumb marked by Ram Singh on 29.02.2000 and 20.11.2000 in that appeal. Counsel further stated that Ram Singh had opened an account in Canara Bank, Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 5 of10 Azadpur Branch on 03.04.99 and had thumb marked the account opening form. That form is accompanied by Form no. 60 bearing the thumb impression of Ram Singh.
6. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondents argued that a case titled as Ghanjeet Singh Vs. Ram Singh etc. bearing no. CS56/10/02 was filed on 06.05.02. In that case, Ram Singh had appeared and had filed vakalatnama, written statement and affidavit in evidence. Thereafter, he was crossexamined on 28.03.05. That case has been decided on 20.03.13 by the court of Ms. Richa Parihar, Ld. Civil Judge06, Central Delhi.
7. Both counsels stated that impugned sale and Will deeds have been annexed with the case titled as Rakesh Vs. Anil bearing CS no. 1102/14 and 1103/14, pending in the court of Mr. Vikrant Vaid, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari courts, in which next date is 06.02.15 and last date was 17.12.14. Both counsels submitted that thumb impressions of Ram Singh appearing on impugned sale and will deeds be got compared from FSL with the thumb impressions of Ram Singh Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 6 of10 appearing on abovestated admitted documents and thereafter, the picture would become clear.
8. Perusal of the file shows that the main dispute between the parties is whether the sale and will deeds are bearing the thumb impressions of Ram Singh or not. On that issue, 56 cases are pending between them. The opinion of handwriting expert on that issue would solve the matters. So, impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to get compared from the FSL the thumb impressions of Ram Singh appearing on original sale and will deeds with the original admitted documents cited by both parties and thereafter decide the complaint afresh.
9. The details of the questioned and admitted documents are as under: (1) SALE DEED Sale deed, registration no. 28483, Book no.I, volume no. 6742 from page no. 67 to 72 registered on 02.09.05 and now annexed in the case titled as Rakesh Vs. Anil, CS no. 1102/14, pending in the court of Mr. Vikrant Vaid, Ld. Civil Judge04, Tis Hazari Courts in which the next date is 06.02.15 and last date was Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 7 of10 17.12.14.
(2) WILL DEED Registration no. 2201, Book No. 3, Vol. No. 1533, page no. 115 dtd. 18.01.01, and registration no. 28483, Book no.I, volume no. 6742 from page no. 67 to 72 registered on 02.09.05 and now annexed in the case titled as Rakesh Vs. Anil, CS no. 1102/14, pending in the court of Mr. Vikrant Vaid, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in which the next date is 06.02.15 and last date was 17.12.14 (3) ADMITTED DOCUMENTS OF PETITIONER A (i) Account opening form of Ram Singh in Canara Bank, Azadpur Branch dtd. 03.04.99 bearing his thumb impression.
(ii) Form no. 60 bearing thumb impressions of Ram Singh.
B (i) Memorandum of appeal titled as Khazan Singh etc. vs. Gaon Sabha bearing no. M29/DC/NW/2000 decided on 05.01.01, goshwara no. 236 bearing thumb impression of Ram Singh on the last page.
(ii) Application dtd. 29.02.2000 u/s 5 of Limitation Act filed with the abovestated appeal and bearing Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 8 of10 thumb impression of Ram Singh.
(iii) Application u/o 26 r 9 CPC dtd. 29.02.2000 filed with abovestated appeal bearing thumb impression of Ram Singh.
(iv) Vakalatnama dtd. 29.02.2000 filed with above stated appeal bearing thumb impression of Ram Singh.
(v) Vakalatnama dtd. 20.11.2000 filed with above stated appeal bearing thumb impression of Ram Singh. (3) ADMITTED DOCUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3.
(i) Vakalatnama dtd. 27.11.02 of advocate Jagat Rana, thumb marked by Ram Singh and filed in case titled as Ghanjeet Singh Vs. Ram Singh etc. bearing no. CS56/10/02 dtd. 06.05.02 decided on 20.03.13 by the court of Ms. Richa Parihar, Ld. Civil Judge06, Central, Tis Hazari Courts.
(ii) Written statement dtd. 27.11.02 filed by Ram Singh bearing his thumb impressions at two places.
(iii) Affidavit in evidence of Ram Singh dtd. 18.11.2004 and attested on 22.12.2004 bearing his thumb impressions at two places.
(iv) Crossexamination of DW1 Ram Singh Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 9 of10 dtd.28.03.05 in abovestated case, bearing his thumb impression.
10. With above observations revision petition is decided. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 28.01.15 at 10.00am. Revision file be consigned to record room and TCR be sent to the concerned court with copy of this order. Announced in the Open Court On day of 15th January' 2015 (UMED SINGH GREWAL) ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi Cr/38/13 (Rakesh Kr. Vs. State etc.) 10 of10