Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Argued by : Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate and Ms. Jashandeep K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J.

1. This common order shall dispose of the above said two miscellaneous petitions that have been filed by the petitioner Ram Bhul Singh. CRM-M-34678-2019 seeks quashing of FIR No. 331 dated 19.08.2019 (Annexue P-10) registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 1 of 29 CRM-M-34678-2019 (O &M) and Connected petition. -2- and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Rai, Disrict Sonepat and all other subsequent proceedings arising there from.

2. The CRM-M-25541 of 2020 on the other hand seeks quashing of FIR No. 227 dated 07.06.2019 registered under Sections 323, 452 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Rai, District Sonepat and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Since the CRM-M-25541 of 2020 relates to the FIR that was registered prior the point of time i.e. 07.06.2019, hence, the facts of the said case are being summarized in brief as under:-

"The above said FIR was registered on the complaint of Varun Goyal S/o Pardeep Goyal (Complainant-respondent in CRM- M-34678-2019) wherein it was alleged that he possesses 05 acres of land on the main road at Rai out of which 20,000 square feet of land and ground floor has been rented. The original lease agreement dated 31.01.2019 was registered at Rai and that Guards had been hired for safety of land. However, on 06.06.2019, the guard namely Sonu informed that the owner of Golden Hut Restaurant (namely Ram Bhul the petitioner herein) had forcibly entered the land and uprooted the trees by JCB which is outside the boundary of rented premises. It is alleged that on reaching the spot it was noticed that the trees and plants that were around 25 years old had been cut without permission and even the Guard had been given beating resulting in registration of the FIR.

5. That for the facility of reference, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties are referred to from CRM-M-34678 of 2019 since the case FIR was registered later in point of time and has specific reference to the earlier case registered at the instance of son of the complainant- respondent No.2 as well.

ARGUMENT BY THE PETITIONER

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is running business under the name and style of Golden Hut Resorts at Village Aswarpur, 39, Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Tehsil Rai, District Sonepat as its proprietor. It is alleged that the property in 4 of 29 CRM-M-34678-2019 (O &M) and Connected petition. -5- question was owned by Smt. Ganga Devi Educational and Cultural Society and a lease deed No. 6241 dated 30.01.2019 was duly executed before the Joint Sub Registrar, Tehsil Rai. The aforesaid lease deed was amended vide registered lease deed No. 7172 dated 14.03.2019 for a period of 22 years for opening of Restaurant/Dhabha under the name and style of Golden Hut Resorts. A reference was made to the registered sale deed (Annexure P-1) and to the conditions made there under and it was pointed out that the petitioner was allowed to use the main gates/entrance as ingress and egress initially for a period of 11 years. Attention was also drawn to the supplementary lease deed registered on 14.03.2019 and contended that each page of said registered supplementary lease agreement is duly signed by both the parties and is also attested by the Joint Sub Registrar. Even the photograph of the complainant on the date of registration of the supplementary agreement was also taken. It is submitted that the complainant has on the other hand appended the supplementary agreement Annexure R-2/5 dated 14.03.2019, of which the second page (forming the basis of registration of the FIR), is not signed by the Joint Registrar, Rai at Sonepat. He thus argued that the respondent No.2-complainant has himself prepared this bogus document that was neither presented before the Joint Sub Registrar nor registered or signed/stamped by the Joint Sub Registrar. The complainant has gotten the FIR registered against the petitioner on the basis of this forged document. He argues that no primacy can be given to any such document that is unregistered and that except registration of the FIR in the year 2019, there is nothing on record or with the Investigating Agency to even remotely suggest that the lease deed with the petitioner is at any variance than the lease deed registered and available in the office of 5 of 29 CRM-M-34678-2019 (O &M) and Connected petition. -6- Joint Sub Registrar, Tehsil Rai, District Sonepat. He has also argued that there is no material to infer at this juncture that the document in favour of the petitioner is a forged and fabricated document considering that the said document is duly reflected in the record of Sub Registrar and all pages thereof bear the stamp of Joint Sub Registrar. Per contra, the document relied upon by the respondent No.2- complainant is not authenticated by the Joint Sub Registrar. An unregistered document cannot be given any precedents or preference over a document which is duly registered in the office of Joint Sub Registrar. It is alleged that the complainant is abusing his proximity with the Police to the prejudice of the petitioner and to seek redetermination of the terms and conditions of the lease by taking recourse to such illegal means.

7. He has further submitted that after execution of the lease agreement and the supplementary lease agreement, the petitioner started the work of setting up of Restaurant/Dhabha and made an investment of Rs.6 crores towards renovation and completed the said work in the month of May, 2019. However, the complainant started interfering in the possession of the petitioner in a illegal manner to extort more money from the petitioner who had already made heavy investment. Resultantly, the petitioner had to file a civil suit titled as "Ram Bhul versus Ganga Devi Educational and Cultural Society and others" for permanent and mandatory injunction. A copy of the said suit dated 06.06.2019 is attached as Annexure P-3. The details of the original lease deed as also the supplementary lease deed were duly mentioned in the said civil suit. Vide order dated 11.07.2019, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sonepat directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards the possession of the suit property and that the 6 of 29 CRM-M-34678-2019 (O &M) and Connected petition. -7- said order maintaining status quo is still continuing. That the respondent No.2 Ganga Devi Educational and Cultural Society through Pardeep Goyal also instituted a Civil Suit (Annexure P-6) for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction under Section 34, 37 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to challenge the lease deed wherein it was acknowledged by the respondent No.2-complainant in para No. 9 of the plaint in the Civil Suit that a supplementary rent agreement was executed between the parties on 18.03.2019. The allegations leveled in the FIR in question were also incorporated in the said Civil Suit instituted on 18.06.2019 and in Paragraph No.14 thereof and a declaration was sought that the lease deed No. 6241 dated 30.01.2019 and the supplementary rent deed No. 7172 dated 14.03.2019 (wrongly mentioned as 18.03.2019) are null and void and not binding on the respondent-plaintiff No.2 on account of violation of the terms of the lease by the petitioner and a further injunction was sought against the petitioner from taking possession of the suit property other than the leased out area.