Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-003576-2023
Crl. Revision No. 194/2023
Shiv Kumar v. State & Ors.
Date of institution : 17.04.2023
Arguments heard on : 20.02.2024
Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2024
Appearance:
Revisionist/complainant through Sh. Baldev Saran, Adv.
Sh. G.S. Guraya, Ld. Chief PP for State/R1.
R2 & R3 through Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
R4 through Mr. Umesh Singh, Adv.
None for R5 & R6.
R7 & R8 through Mr. B.S. Solanki, Adv.
R9 SI Geeta Yadav in person.
O R D E R
The respondents/accused No.2 to 5 allegedly entered
into an agreement with the complainant to sell his property
bearing plot no. 104, Khasra No. 20/16, meansuring area 240 sq.
yards situated at Swami Sarda Park, Samaypur Badli, Delhi for
Rs.7,80,000/-. On 11.02.2014, Rs.2,80,000/- was paid to the
accused persons as Bayana and rest consideration amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on 01.04.2014. The sale documents were
executed by the accused persons in favour of the complainant,
Kavita Arya, Hemchand and Kishan.
2. On 02.04.2014 one Sanjay Sharma came at the
spot/purchased plot and stopped the construction work of the
Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
complainant, who also claimed himself as the owner of the said
plot. Proposed accused persons admitted that the plot is disputed
and that they would return the money. They also executed an
agreement/settlement in writing for return of the amount before
May 2017 but even after repeated demands, accused persons did
not return the money. Accused persons started extending threats
and one of the associates of accused persons namely Anokhe Lal
abducted Kavita Arya on 09.12.2015 and in this regard a
complaint case is pending before the court of Sh. Navdeep
Gupta, Ld. MM. Kishan was the eye-witness in the said
kidnapping. Proposed accused no. 6 to 7 are stated to be
associates of accused no. 1 to 5.
3. On 26.02.2017 Proposed accused no.8 alongwith other
police officials came to the house of the complainant and beat
Ajay Kumar and Kishan and also took them to police station
Aman Vihar and FIR No. 203/17 was lodged by accused no.1
with the help of accused no.2. Kishan is untraceable since then.
The complainant has also lodged complaint in this regard vide
DD No. 48B. The police officials did not take any action,
therefore, the revisionist filed a complaint before the Ld.
Magistrate together with application u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. Ld.
Magistrate through the impugned order dated 01.03.2023
dismissed the application and posted the matter for recording of
pre-summoning evidence.
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the
present revision u/s.397 & 399 Cr.P.C. has been filed. Through
the instant order, the revision petition stands disposed off.
Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
5. It is contended by the revisionist that the police has
filed ATR with wrong statement that the complainant filed a suit
for possession qua the plot in dispute and the said plot situates in
the jurisdiction of PS S.P. Badli. It is further contended that the
entire transaction took place in the jurisdiction of PS Aman Vihar
and the complainant has not filed suit for possession qua the said
plot rather it is a suit for recovery of money. Ld. Trial Court did
not take into account the facts that the accused persons have
cheated the complainant by selling the plot to another person, the
dispute is not regarding Bayana amount only rather full
consideration amount has been given to the accused persons, and
accused persons have kidnapped Kishan, who is an eye-witness
of kidnapping of Kavita Arya. Despite the fact that the complaint
revealed commission of cognizable offences, the Ld. Magistrate
did not order the registration of FIR under appropriate
provisions, which should have been ordered in terms of the
mandate in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
6. Respondents contested the petition and stated that the
order of the Ld. Trial Court is in consonance of the facts and law
on the subject. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned
order, therefore, no interference is required. It is further
contended that the facts have been concocted and fabricated by
the revisionist whereas the respondents have never sold any plot
at any point of time and did not receive single penny from the
revisionist. Respondent no.2 & 3 have their own grievances
against the revisionist and three FIRs are already registered in the
Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
year 2017 for kidnapping etc. of the minor daughter of
respondents no.2 & 3.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the
contesting sides and have perused the record as well.
8. In a revision petition, the Revisional Court is expected
to examine the impugned order on the parameters of being
correct, legal and proper. The Revisional Court is also expected
to come to the conclusion that the impugned order is not an
interlocutory order and, therefore, not hit by Section 397 (2)
Cr.P.C. Thus, within the aforesaid parameters and the limited
scope, the impugned order is required to be examined.
9. Given the facts, the dispute arose between the parties
seems to be of civil in nature. It becomes all the more necessary
to be more cautious to act upon the allegations unless those
allegations are well founded and supported by requisite evidence
to enable the authorities to at least proceed further when there is
cases and cross-complaints are there amongst parties. Ld. Trial
Court has rightly held that the dispute prima facie appears to be
regarding not providing the possession of the plot and even
refusing to return the Bayana amount. One of the foremost and
basic requirement that there was an intention to cheat is amiss in
the facts of the case. Had there been such an intention, which is
a pre-requisite, then the respondents no.2 to 5 would not have
agreed to return the amount and certain amount has been
reportedly repaid too. Thus, when the basic ingredient is not
there, then the proposed accusation seems unfounded. The same
Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
being the genesis of the whole set of allegations takes away the
remaining too.
10. The complainant appears to be in possession of the
relevant evidence. Custodial interrogation of the accused persons
is not required nor any specialized and technical intervention is
required. Therefore, at this stage, there is no requirement of
police intervention/investigation. In case, the complainant is able
to show and Court is convinced then the Ld. MM can still invoke
Section 202 Cr.P.C.
11. Ld. Trial Court, on the basis of these material,
concluded that no case for registration of FIR is made out and
supported his findings with reasons and judgments. Apparently,
there is no flaw in the impugned order and, therefore, it does not
require any interference. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
12. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. File be
consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 20th February, 2024
(Vimal Kumar Yadav)
Principal District & Sessions Judge(NW)
Rohini Courts, Delhi/sb
Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --