Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
Gurpreet Singh
S/o S. Jagdish Singh
R/o 38/17, First Floor
New Delhi-110008
………..Revisionist / Petitioner
vs
Central Bureau of Investigation
Plot No.5-B, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, Delhi-110003
………..Respondent
Appearance :
Sh. Kaushal Jeet Kait, Ld. Counsel for petitioner/
revisionist Gurpreet Singh.
Sh. Prashant Kumar, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI along with
Inspector Indrajeet Arya,
Sh.Abhijit Anand, Ld. Counsel for Sh.J. Dalvin
Suresh, father of deceased Navin Dalvin.
26.03.2025
ORDER
1. The present revision under Section 438 read with Section
440 of BNSS is preferred against the order of Ld. ACJM-2-cum-
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 1 of 11 --
2
ACJ, RADC, New Delhi dated 17.12.2024, where applications
were filed on behalf of owners of the property no. BP-11, Bazar
Marg, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi seeking directions for de-
sealing and for free ingress and outgress of second floor the
property.
2. The CBI registered a case bearing RC 0482024S0008 on
account of unfortunate incident, happened in the basement of
aforementioned premises where three innocent students lost their
lives due to flooding. Initially, FIR was registered at PS Rajender
Nagar and later by virtue of orders of High Court dated
02.08.2024, the investigation was transferred to Central Bureau
of Investigation. The building was given on rent by the owners
to “M/s Rau’s IAS Study Circle” which was being used as a
coaching centre. Allegedly, the basement of the building was
being used in contravention and violation of rules and regulations
which resulted in the unfortunate incident.
3. The petitioner/owner (of second floor) raised the
contentions in his application that the incident in question had
taken place in the basement of the building and other floors were
not involved and the investigating agency has already taken
sufficient time to carry out the investigation with respect to the
entire building. The lessee / tenant has not been making any
payment of rent as the property has been sealed by the CBI.
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 2 of 11 --
3
4. After hearing the submissions of both the sides, Ld. ACJM
observed as follows:-
“16. The entire building was functioning without a valid
Fire Safety Certificate. Only when the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi vide order dated 25.07.2023 noted that
several coaching centers were being run without a valid
fire NOC and directed that such coaching centers which
do not confirm to the norms as per Master Plan,
Delhi-2021 be shut down, a Show Cause Notice dated
04.08.2023 was issued by the MCD to the
owner/occupier of the basement, ground floor, first
floor, second floor and third floor of the subject
premises to stop the misuse of the premises and bring it
within the permitted use as per Master Plan, Delhi-2021.
In response, accused Abhishek Gupta vide his response
letter dated 08.08.2023 informed the MCD that they
have applied for Fire Safety Certificate vide letter dated
04.08.2023. Investigation further revealed that letter
dated 17.10.2023 was issued by Rau's IAS Study Circle
to the MCD for issuance of the Fire Safety Certificate;
accused Deshpal Singh had been attending the hearings
at the MCD office. During the inspection by the DFS, it
was found that there were eleven shortcomings in the
building and the Fire Safety Certificate was ultimately
issued on 09.07.2024 after the compliances were made
by the coaching institute.
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 3 of 11 --
4
17. It is further relevant to note that earlier, vide a letter
dated 02.03.2022, one Amarjeet Singh had applied for
issuance of a Fire Safety Certificate to "Educational
Building" functioning from the subject premises. It was
specifically mentioned in the letter that the building is
intended to be used as education building instead of
business building. Vide letter dated 05.04.2022, the DFS
sought sanctioned building plan of educational
occupancy of the building. However, without taking any
further steps, the owners of the building let out the
building for coaching purpose.
18. From the investigation carried out so far, it cannot
be said that only due to administrative lapses, Fire
Safety Certificate was not issued with respect to the
building in question. There is also no force in the
submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicants that the
Show Cause Notice dated 04.08.2023 was issued only to
the owner/occupier of the basement and not to the
applicants.
19. Pertinent to note is that the applicants are the owners
not only of their respective floors but also of their
respective undivided share in the land on which the
building has been constructed. It has already been noted
in the order dated 28.08.2024 that the basement of the
building cannot be treated as a separate unit while
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 4 of 11 --
5
considering the safety of the building. The order dated
28.08.2024 has not been challenged till date.”
5. In the present revision filed on behalf of
petitioner/revisionist Gurpreet Singh, it is submitted that he is
rightful and lawful owner of the second floor of the property
which is duly constructed as per sanctioned building plan of
MCD. The building was meant to be used for commercial /
business purposes. The premises were leased out to M/s Rau’s
IAS Study Circle, a coaching institute vide lease agreement. The
incident on 27.07.2024 occurred where three students got trapped
in the basement of the building due to flooding caused by heavy
rainfall. The incident was confined to the basement and no part of
the ground floor or first floor was involved. The case was
registered and investigation was transferred to CBI. The CBI
sealed the entire building including the upper floors of the
building despite the fact that tragic incident was confined solely
to the basement. This action has caused significant prejudice to
the applicant. Ld. ACJM has dismissed the application of the
applicant on erroneous grounds and contrary to the established
principles of law.
6. It is also contended that sealing of the property of the
petitioner amounts to violation of his fundamental rights as he
has been deprived of his right to use and enjoy the property. The
lessee / tenant has stopped paying rent. There are no allegations
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 5 of 11 --
6
against the applicant in the FIR as also applicant had no control
or involvement in the operations of the basement, which entirely
was under the control of the lessee. The applicant cannot be held
liable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Sealing of the
upper floors is not essential for investigation and even otherwise
the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been
submitted in the court. In view of the above contentions, it is
prayed that order dated 17.12.2024 be set aside. Revisionist has
relied upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi in Farida
Begum vs Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P (C) 15960 of 2022.
7. CBI has filed its reply to the present revision petition. It is
submitted that applicant is one of the joint owners of the second
floor of the building which was leased out to M/s Rau’s IAS
Study Circle vide lease deed dated 11.02.2022. It has been
revealed that show-cause notice dated 04.08.2023 was issued by
Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Karol Bagh Zone to the owners/
occupiers of the building relating to the misuse of the property.
The charge-sheet has been submitted before the court against the
accused persons who are owners and lessee of the property
(basement portion) in question. The court has also taken
cognizance against the accused persons vide order dated
04.12.2024. The similar application was filed by the occupier of
the second floor Abhishek Gupta but the said application was
dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2024. Refuting the grounds
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 6 of 11 --
7
taken in the revision petition, it is prayed that revision be
dismissed.
8. During the course of hearing, an affidavit has been
submitted on record by the petitioner Gurpreet Singh stating
therein that on behalf of tenant i.e. Rau’s IAS Study Circle, a
notice on whatsapp was received by the applicant as sent by Mr.
Ashok Narang, Consultant stating that they are constrained to
vacate the premises and message be treated as formal notice to
vacate. The termination / eviction notice dated 04.03.2025 has
also been sent to Mr. Abhishek Gupta seeking vacation of the
premises and handing over of the physical possession of the
same.
9. Arguing on behalf of revisionist, Ld. Counsel Sh.Kaushal
Jeet Kait submitted that the second floor of the building is not the
crime scene per-se. The incident in question had happened in the
basement of the building. The revisionist being the landlord is
having interest in his property and in its upkeep and maintenance.
The revisionist is not an accused in the case nor has any kind of
involvement in the matter. The petitioner has not received any
rent for last several months after the incident. The investigation
of the case is complete and the premises in question is not
required for any purpose. It is also asserted that CBI has no right
under any provision of law to seal the property indefinitely.
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 7 of 11 --
8
10. Arguing on behalf of CBI, Ld. Senior Prosecutor
Sh.Prashant Kumar argued that in order to secure the crime
scene, they have not permitted, the entry or usage of premises.
11. Arguing on behalf of victim, Ld. Counsel Sh.Abhijit
Anand argued that entire building is subject matter of further
investigation. Although the charge-sheet has been submitted but
further investigation is still pending. Ld. Counsel further argued
that Interlocutory order cannot be challenged in criminal
revision. The building in question has been without sanctioned
building plan and fire clearance has been illegally obtained for
the entire premises. The building has been misused from the
very beginning and was being used illegally for educational
purpose.
12. I have given due consideration to the submissions of both
the sides.
13. Section 438 BNSS empowers the Sessions Court to call for
and examine the record of any proceeding, before any inferior
criminal court within the local limits of its jurisdiction, for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, and
propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed
and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such court. The
revisional powers are purely discretionary and should be
exercised only in cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 8 of 11 --
9
14. As a broad preposition revisional jurisdiction may be
exercised where:-
i. the decision is unjust and unfair,
ii. the decision is grossly erroneous,
iii. there is no compliance with the provisions of law,
the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based
on evidence,
iv. material evidence of the party is not considered.
v. the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely.
15. The impugned order cannot be said to be interlocutory in
nature as its substantially affects the rights of the parties. In my
opinion, revision is maintainable against the impugned order.
16. On merits, the petitioner is not an accused in the case as
also the second floor of the premises is not the crime scene.
Incident had happened in the basement of the building. The
petitioner is seeking directions for free ingress and outgress to his
floor. However, directions are being sought only against CBI and
is relating only to the case in question. The investigation of the
case is complete and second floor of the premises cannot be a
matter of further investigation. So far as the contentions raised
by Counsel Sh.Abhijit Anand as to the building sanctioned plan
or fire clearance certificate are concerned, I am of the opinion
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 9 of 11 --
10
that it is for the concerned authorities to take action against the
owners of the building in case of any violation. CBI has no right
to keep the property sealed as also authorities concerned are free
to take action against the building in question as per rules. The
second floor of the premises is not the crime scene as the incident
had happened in the basement.
17. In these circumstances, it would be unjust to deny the
revisionist his right and privilege to enjoy his property in
question. The tenant has already given notice to vacate the
premises and even the eviction / termination notice has also been
sent to the tenant.
18. I do not find any legal provision which allows the CBI to
take control of the property indefinitely particularly when the
same is not involved in the crime in question. In my opinion,
revisionist should be allowed to deal with his property and same
be released to him. Accordingly, the second floor of the property
no.BP-11, Bazar Marg, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi be
released in favour of the petitioner. However, this order would
not prevent the civic authorities to take any action against the
building in question in case of violation of rules, regulations or
bye-laws.
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 10 of 11 --
11
19. In the result, the present revision petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 17.12.2024 is accordingly set aside.
20. Copy of order be sent to the trial Court for information.
21. Revision file be consigned to the record room.
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI),
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi/26.03.2025
Crl Rev No.02/2025
Gurpreet Singh vs CBI
-- 11 of 11 --