Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVI, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Ct Case No. 837/2021
Puran Chand Tamta vs R.C. Sabharwal & Ors.
03.12.2025
Present: Ms. Mercy and Sh. Nishit, Ld. counsels for complainant.
ORDER ON SUMMONING
1. The present complaint under Section 200 CrPC has been filed by
complainant Sh. Puran Chand Tamta alleging that he is the lawful
purchaser of Flats Nos. 5A and 5B, White House, 10 Bhagwan Das
Road, New Delhi, on the basis of two flat buyer agreements dated
09.03.1994 executed through M/s Taj World Fame Builders, and a
registered General Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2021 executed by
the builder’s proprietor Sh. Raja Deepak Madan in his favour,
whereunder vacant possession of both flats was handed over to him
and the builder’s locks were replaced with his locks.
2. It is alleged that on 24.04.2021, on suspicion of illegal activities
in the flats, the complainant again changed the locks; on perusal of the
CCTV footage of 22–24.04.2021 he noticed maids/associates of Bali
brothers, and accused Kamla and Beena, entering the flats at night with
bags and leaving the next morning. On 25.04.2021 at about 12:30 p.m.,
accused Ravinder Kumar Bali and Rajinder Kumar Bali, along with
others, allegedly trespassed into Flats 5A and 5B, broke open the
Ct Case No. 837/2021 Puran Chand Tamta vs R.C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page no. 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
complainant’s locks with the help of accused Lal Chand
(plumber/carpenter) and put their own locks; when the complainant
visited later that day he was abused and given life threats by Bali
brothers and their family members and was prevented from entering
his flats.
3. The complaint further alleges that despite several complaints to
PS Tilak Marg and to senior police officers, effective action was not
taken; instead, Bali brothers and their associates tampered with the
DVRs of CCTV cameras after the police had directed the
RWA/Secretary to preserve the footage, thereby attempting to destroy
evidence of their unlawful acts. It is also the allegation that accused
Anil Kumar Mehta and Ranjana Mehta, claiming to act for M/s Morni
Merchants Ltd., have been falsely projecting themselves as owners of
the two flats on the basis of unregistered/unsupported flat buyer
agreements, and along with Bali brothers had earlier approached the
CBI Court seeking orders which would indirectly declare Morni
Merchants as owner, though such applications were dismissed and, as
per enquiry, the documents produced by them were found not genuine.
4. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined himself
as CW-1 and reiterated on oath the above allegations; he proved copies
of the flat buyer agreements, the registered GPA, photographs showing
breaking of locks, complaints addressed to the police authorities, and
CCTV footage in CD/pen drive form, accompanied by a certificate
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Sh. Raja Deepak
Ct Case No. 837/2021 Puran Chand Tamta vs R.C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page no. 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
Madan was examined as CW-2 and has deposed that he, as
builder/attorney, sold Flats 5A and 5B only to the complainant,
executed the registered GPA in his favour on 19.04.2021, personally
handed over vacant possession to him, and has never transferred these
flats to Ravinder Kumar Bali, Rajinder Kumar Bali or any other
accused
5. Pursuant to directions under Section 202 CrPC, an enquiry
report was submitted by PS Tilak Marg. The report records, inter alia,
that CCTV footage of 22–25.04.2021 shows maids of Bali brothers and
later Bali brothers and their family members present near Flats 5A and
5B; at about 12:50 p.m. on 25.04.2021 the lock of the flat is seen being
broken and thereafter Bali brothers remain inside the flat. Statement of
Lal Chand, plumber/carpenter, was recorded; he admitted that he is
seen in the CCTV footage breaking the lock of the complainant’s flat
with a hammer and stated that he did so on the asking of Dr. Bali
(Ravinder/Rajinder). The enquiry records that Anil Mehta and Ranjana
Mehta could not produce any valid registered title documents for Flats
5A and 5B, that their flat buyer agreements are on plain paper, that
documents relied upon by them were found not genuine, and that they,
along with Bali brothers, had moved CBI Court for permission to sell
the flats, which application was dismissed with observations that they
had no right over the properties.
6. On the other hand, the enquiry specifically notes the statement
of Raja Deepak Madan that he had sold the flats only to the
Ct Case No. 837/2021 Puran Chand Tamta vs R.C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page no. 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
complainant and that neither Morni Merchants Ltd. nor Ravinder or
Rajinder Bali has any right, title or interest in the flats, and describes
the documents of the complainant (GPA and sale agreements) as
genuine and verified from the Sub-Registrar records. It further notes
the statements of R.C. Sabharwal and Puneet Sabharwal that they have
nothing to do with Flats 5A and 5B and no material has surfaced
connecting them with the trespass, threats or tampering of CCTV
footage.
7. At the stage of issuing process under Sections 200–204 CrPC,
the Court is required only to see whether there is sufficient ground to
proceed, i.e. whether, on a prima facie view of the complaint,
statements and documents, the basic ingredients of the alleged offences
are disclosed against the persons sought to be summoned; detailed
evaluation of evidence or consideration of possible defences is not
warranted. The Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, has emphasized that
summoning an accused is a serious matter and the Magistrate must
apply judicial mind to the materials and record reasons indicating
satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In Rajesh
Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 3 SCC 259, it has been held that
at the initial stage, if the factual foundation for the offence is laid in the
complaint and statements, absence of meticulous detail is not fatal and
the Court need only see whether the necessary ingredients are broadly
made out.
Ct Case No. 837/2021 Puran Chand Tamta vs R.C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page no. 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
8. Having considered the complaint, pre-summoning evidence of
CW-1 and CW-2, the documents filed and the enquiry report under
Section 202 CrPC, there is prima facie material to show that accused
Ravinder Kumar Bali and Rajinder Kumar Bali, in furtherance of their
common intention and in conspiracy with other family members,
criminally trespassed into Flats 5A and 5B on 25.04.2021, broke open
the complainant’s locks with the help of Lal Chand, replaced them with
their own locks, thereby dispossessing the complainant, and threatened
him with dire consequences when he protested, attracting offences of
house-trespass and criminal intimidation. The role of Praful Bali and
Shitij Bali also emerges from the complaint and enquiry as being
present with the Bali brothers during the incident, abusing and
threatening the complainant and forming part of the unlawful assembly
facilitating trespass and intimidation.
9. There is further prima facie material against Kamla and Beena,
who are identified as maids/associates of the Bali family, seen in
CCTV footage repeatedly entering and exiting the flats at odd hours
carrying bags just prior to the incident; their conduct, coupled with the
main acts of Bali brothers, indicates participation in the preparation
and commission of the alleged house-trespass and mischief. Lal
Chand, by his own statement during enquiry, admits to having broken
the locks of the complainant’s flats with a hammer on the instructions
of Dr. Bali; this directly connects him with the act of mischief and
facilitates the trespass.
Ct Case No. 837/2021 Puran Chand Tamta vs R.C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page no. 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
10. So far as Anil Kumar Mehta and Ranjana Mehta are concerned,
the enquiry material shows that they have been claiming ownership of
the two flats on behalf of M/s Morni Merchants Ltd. without valid,
registered title documents, that the flat buyer agreements relied on by
them are unregistered and on plain paper, that they failed to produce
originals, and that documents produced by them were found not
genuine. Their conduct in projecting such documents, in filing
applications before the CBI Court with Bali brothers to secure
recognition of Morni Merchants as owner despite lack of genuine title,
and in continuing to claim ownership against the complainant’s
registered documents, prima facie discloses the ingredients of cheating
and use of forged documents, as well as conspiracy with Bali brothers
to grab the flats.
11. In contrast, apart from being arrayed as accused in the
complaint, there is no substantive material in the complaint,
pre-summoning evidence or Section 202 enquiry to show that R.C.
Sabharwal or Puneet Sabharwal participated in the alleged trespass,
lock-breaking, threats, tampering of CCTV footage or in the
preparation or use of disputed documents; rather, the enquiry records
their statements that they have nothing to do with Flats 5A and 5B and
no material contradicts this at this stage. Similarly, the criminal acts in
relation to the alleged forged documents and false ownership claims
are specifically attributable to Anil Kumar Mehta and Ranjana Mehta;
in the facts presently available, it is neither necessary nor justified to
summon M/s Morni Merchants Ltd. as a separate accused over and
above these individuals.
Ct Case No. 837/2021 Puran Chand Tamta vs R.C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page no. 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that
there is sufficient ground to proceed against the following persons:
Anil Kumar Mehta, Ranjana Mehta, Ravinder Kumar Bali, Rajinder
Kumar Bali, Praful Bali, Shitij Bali, Kamla, Beena, Lal Chand for
offences prima facie punishable under the relevant provisions of the
Indian Penal Code relating to criminal trespass/house-trespass,
mischief, criminal intimidation, cheating, forgery/using forged
documents and criminal conspiracy, as may be made out from the
complaint. Summons be issued to the aforesaid accused on filing of PF
and RC, returnable on a date to be fixed.
13. At this stage, no sufficient ground is made out to proceed against
R.C. Sabharwal, Puneet Sabharwal or M/s Morni Merchants Ltd. as a
separate juristic person; accordingly, the complaint is dismissed to that
extent.
(RAVI)
JMFC-07/PHC/ND/03.12.2025
Ct Case No. 837/2021 Puran Chand Tamta vs R.C. Sabharwal & Ors. Page no. 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --