Delhi District Court
Sh. Sulekh Chand Singhal vs The State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi) on 19 January, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI:DELHI
(Crl. Revision No. : 28/11)
Unique Case ID No. : 02404RO312082011
CC No. : 572/10
U/s : 156 (3) Cr.P.C
PS : Maurya Enclave
Sh. Sulekh Chand Singhal ... Petitioner
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o G289, Preet Vihar,
Delhi110092
Vs.
1. The State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent
2. Sh. Prem Chand Gupta
S/o Sh. Sis Ram Gupta
3. Sh. Ankit Gupta
S/o Sh. Prem Chand Gupta
4. Sh. Abhishek Gupta
S/o Sh. Prem Chand Gupta
All R/o D46, Lord Krishna Road,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
5. Sh. Adesh Bhardwaj
R/o 303/1, Nand Bhawan,
Burari, Delhi110084
C.R No. : 28/11 1/5
2
6. The SubRegistrarVI A,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 05.11.2011
Date on which, order have been reserved 18.01.2012
Date of pronouncement of order19.01.2012
ORDER:
1 The present revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Sulekh Chand Singhal against the impugned order dated 27.08.2011 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in case bearing CC No. 572/10 titled as 'Sulekh Chand Singhal vs. Prem Chand Gupta & Ors.' u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed by petitioner was dismissed. 2 Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present revisionpetition are that complainant filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court praying that necessary directions be given for registration of FIR. Complainant's case is that he was 50% share holder in an immovable property as detailed in para 3 of application having purchased the same vide register sale deed document bearing no. 16582 in Addl. Book no. 1, volume no. 662 at pages 67 to 74 dated 06.11.2006 registered with the SubRegistrar VIA, Delhi. The remaining 50% C.R No. : 28/11 2/5 3 share was equally divided between accused no. 2 and 4 (respondents no. 3 and 5). It is alleged that revisionist/complainant never sold his share in favour of the accused persons, but it was learnt subsequently that accused persons have let out the property in question to Punjab National Bank and upon service of a legal notice to Punjab National Bank, it was replied to the effect that revisionist/complainant had sold his 50% share to accused no. 1 (HUF)respondent no. 2 on 05.10.2009 and on an enquiry from the SubRegistrar, Office, it was revealed that one sale deed purportedly executed by the revisionist/complainant was registered in favour of the accused no. 1. It has been alleged that revisionist/complainant never sold his share to accused no. 1 and the said deed was executed using forged signature of the revisionist/complainant. 3 Perusal of record shows that pursuant to the said complaint, report was called from the SHO concerned. It appears that along with the action taken report/status report, IO filed a report of handwriting expert, which revealed that thumb impression on the Sale Deed which was registered at SubRegistrar Office, was same as the specimen thumb impression of the complainant. Faced with the said report, it was submitted on behalf of the revisionist/complainant that sale deed was written, but complainant never presented it for registration. Under these circumstances, learned Trial Court opined that complainant was required to prove the allegations by leading presummoning evidence and no case was made out to exercise C.R No. : 28/11 3/5 4 discretionary powers u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Hence the present revision petition.
4. I have heard the arguments put forward by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. PP for the State and have carefully gone through the trial court record.
5 In the present revision, the revisionist has tried to clarify as to manner in which, the purported sale deed was executed/drafted in favour of Sh. Prem Chand Gupta by him. This detailed explanation/circumstances have not been mentioned by the revisionist in his complaint/application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed before the learned trial court. Further, counsel for revisionist has relied upon a report dated 12.08.2010 of a private handwriting and finger print expert to state that disputed sale deed has been forged and fabricated. It is pertinent to note that this report does not give specific finding regarding thumb impression on the impugned sale deed and it is merely mentioned that it is not possible to give opinion as disputed thumb impressions are blurred. This report was neither referred to by the revisionist in his complaint, which was filed on 06.09.2010, nor was it ever produced before the learned trial court. The report given by the expert from Finger Print Bureau of Delhi Police is contrary to report given by the private handwriting expert engaged by the complainant. C.R No. : 28/11 4/5 5
6. In these circumstances, the true facts can be ascertained only after complainant leads his presummoning evidence before the learned trial court. I do not find any infirmity, illegality or error in the impugned order dated dated 27.08.2011 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in case bearing CC No. 572/10 titled as 'Sulekh Chand Singhal vs. Prem Chand Gupta & Ors.'
7. In view of the above, the present revisionpetition filed on behalf of the petitioner Sh. Sulekh Chand Singhal is without merit, hence dismissed.
TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision file be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open Court) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 19.01.2012) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi.
C.R No. : 28/11 5/5
6
C.R No. : 28/11 6/5