Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. GARIMA JINDAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06,NORTH, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
53
Ct. Cases 151/2024
LALIT KUMAR Vs. MANOJ KUMAR
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application u/s 156(3) of
Cr.PC filed by the complainant. The facts of the complaint, in brief, are as
follows:
2. The father of the SPA holder (Mr. Deepanshu Dudeja) of the
complainant (i.e. the complainant herein) had purchased the property
bearing no. House no. 1, 2nd Floor, Kewal Park, Pritam Marg, Azadpur,
Delhi-110033, from proposed accused no. 1(Manoj Kumar) and 2(Lakshmi
Devi) and latter, executed documents in favour of the complainant and
received sale consideration amount from the complainant. Later, they
handed over the peaceful and physical possession to the complainant and
since then the complainant is residing there. It is further averred that in the
agreement to sell executed by the accused persons, they have mentioned that
the property in question is free from any loan or lien, however, on
09.11.2016, complainant fame to know that the accused persons had availed
a loan from LIC Housing Finance against the property in question.
Thereafter, when the complainant confronted the accsued persons about the
same, they accepted the same. It is further averred that LIC started
threatening the complainant and started demanding defaulted amount.
Thereafter, accused persons requested the complainant to pay the defaulted
amount to LIC and also requested not to make any police complaint and
undertook to return the said amount to the complainant. Complainant having
no other option left, deposited Rs. 2,49,700/- through cheques to LIC.
Thereafter, complainant also filed a civil suit against the accused persons
and LIC however, till date, accused presons have not paid the balance
amount to the LIC and even did not return the amount to the complainant. It
-- 1 of 2 --
is further aveerred that to save their house, complainant has till date paid
approx. Rs. 6 lakhs to LIC. Later, the complainant filed complaint with
police on 27.12.2023, however, no action was taken thereupon.
3. After filing of the application, ATR was called from the
concerned PS, which was filed on 03.06.2024 wherein it is stated that during
inquiry, accused persons have stated that they had just rented out the
property to the complainant and signed some documents and later, came to
know that complainant is claiming to be the owner of the property. It is
further stated therein that the witness mentioned on the sale documents
produced by the complainant namely Ram Chander was contacted who
admitted that the property in question was sold by the accused persons to the
complainant. Whereas, the other witness Sandeep Kumar was not traceable.
It is further stated therein that the present complaint has been filed by the
complainant after a delay of about 8 years and moreover civil cases are
pending between the parties, hence, no FIR was registered.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The court is in agreement with the ATR that primarily issue
between the parties is civil in nature and the present application has been
filed by the complainant after a delay of over 8 years. In view of the same,
the case of the complainant, does not inspire the confidence of this court.
Moreover, the facts alleged by the complainant are within the knowledge of
the complainant and the same can be proved by the complainant with the
help of summoned witnesses. If at all, investigation by police is required at
any stage, inquiry u/s 202 of Cr.PC may be resorted to. At this stage, the
court does not deem it appropriate to exercise powers u/s 156(3) of Cr.PC in
favour of the complainant. Application stands dispsoed off accordingly.
(Garima Jindal)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-06
North District
Rohini Courts,Delhi
-- 2 of 2 --