Final Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: DLNW010051592024
Presented on : 30-05-2024
Registered on : 31-05-2024
Decided on : 06-03-2025
Duration : 0 years, 9 months,
7 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Cr Rev/194/2024
SATYA BHUSHAN JAIN
S/o Late Sh. J.S. Jain,
R/o House No. 68, Veer Nagar,
Jain Colony, Delhi-110007.
….Revisionist/petitioner
Vs.
1. PUNIT JAIN
S/o Sh. Satya Bhushan Jain
R/o House No. 68, Veer Nagar,
Jain Colony, Delhi-110007.
2. VIKAS JAIN
S/o Sh. Satya Bhushan Jain
R/o House No. 68, Veer Nagar,
Jain Colony, Delhi-110007.
3. RACHNA JAIN
W/o Sh. Vikas Jain
R/o House No. 68, Veer Nagar,
Jain Colony, Delhi-110007.
C.R. No. 194/2024 Satya Bhushan Jain Vs. Punit Jain & ors. Page no. 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
4. SURBHI JAIN
W/o Sh. Puneet Jain
R/o House No. 68, Veer Nagar,
Jain Colony, Delhi-110007.
….Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for petitioner : Sh. Deepak Vohra & Sh. Sidhant Jain
Advocate for Respondents : Sh. Arjun Anand & Sh. Priyam
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 06-03-2025)
1. This revision petition is directed against impugned order
dated 02.01.2024 passed by ld. MM-02 (now JMFC), North-West
District, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby ld. Trial Court dismissed
the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant, petitioner
herein, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging
that proposed accused persons are the sons and daughter in law
of the complainant/petitioner. Wife of complainant/petitioner
expired in the year 2021 and after her death, all the proposed
accused persons started harassing the complainant. Complainant
purchased a property bearing no. 68, Veer Nagar, Jain Colony,
Delhi in the name of his wife and after death of his wife, all
proposed accused persons have made a false/fake will for
usurping the property of complainant. All proposed accused
persons do not allow the complainant/petitioner to enter in his
own property and they have also taken all important and valuable
articles from the room of complainant/petitioner.
C.R. No. 194/2024 Satya Bhushan Jain Vs. Punit Jain & ors. Page no. 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
3. Ld. Trial Court called for ATR from SHO PS concerned
and IO had filed status report mentioning that a civil suit, qua the
alleged property, between the parties is pending before Hon’ble
High Court. It is also mentioned that petitioner has left the house
on his own and for the same sons of petitioner has also filed a
missing complaint dated 12.06.2023 in the PS.
4. After hearing arguments on application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., ld. Trial Court dismissed the same while
observing that:
“5. Thus, after perusing the gravamen of the
allegations and the status report holistically, I am
of the view that the complainant can prove his
case without any need of police investigation at
this stage. Significantly, the complainant and the
proposed accused are known to each other and all
the facts and evidence are within the knowledge
and possession of the complainant which can be
adduced by him during the trial by examining the
witnesses and producing the documents. Having
said so, in the facts and circumstances, there is
nothing that is required to be
unearth/discovered/recovered and for which
police assistance is required……”
5. Grounds taken to file the present revision petition are that
ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order mechanically without
appreciating the complete facts and criminal conduct of the
C.R. No. 194/2024 Satya Bhushan Jain Vs. Punit Jain & ors. Page no. 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
respondents. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact the
complainant/petitioner is a senior citizen and without proper
investigation cannot prove the offence more particularly the
offence pertaining to alleged Will of deceased wife of petitioner.
Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that petitioner does
not have the possession of the evidence, more particularly the
alleged Will of deceased wife of petitioner.
6. Detailed reply was filed on behalf of respondents claiming
that the property in question was bequeathed by the actual owner
of the property i.e. mother of R-1 & R-2 in favour of R-1& R-2.
Petitioner/complainant has already been granted the relief of
possession of the ground floor in the said property, by Hon’ble
High Court and petitioner is trying to give a criminal colour to a
civil matter
7. On the scope of power of Higher Court in revision, it has
been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor Vs.
Ramesh Chander & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2012 that:
“8. Before examining the merits of the present case, we
must advert to the discussion as to the ambit and scope of
the power which the courts including the High Court can
exercise under Section 397 and Section 482 of the
Code. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an inferior
court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a
case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent
defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a
well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the
court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it
bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the various
judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
C.R. No. 194/2024 Satya Bhushan Jain Vs. Punit Jain & ors. Page no. 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance
with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based
on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are
not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its own merits.
9. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the
inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an
interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in
mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is
dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
been framed properly and in accordance with law in a
given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially
falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of
charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under
the Cr.P.C. Right from the case of State of West Bengal &
Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. [(1982) 1 SCC 561],
which was reiterated with approval in the case of State of
Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp. (1)
SCC 335], the courts have stated the principle that if the
FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the
investigation on the basis of the information as laid or
received. It is further stated that the legal position appears
to be that if an offence is disclosed, the court will not
normally interfere with an investigation into the case and
will permit investigation into the offence alleged to have
been committed; if, however, the materials do not
disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be
permitted. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not,
must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case. If on consideration of the relevant materials,
the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, it will
normally not interfere with the investigation into the
offence and will generally allow the investigation into the
offence to be completed in order to collect materials for
proving the offence. In Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), the
Court also stated that though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae or
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein power under Section 482 of the Code for
quashing of an FIR should be exercised, there are
circumstances where the Court may be justified in
exercising such jurisdiction. These are, where the FIR
does not prima facie constitute any offence, does not
C.R. No. 194/2024 Satya Bhushan Jain Vs. Punit Jain & ors. Page no. 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by
the police; where the allegations are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
where there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code; and where a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge. Despite stating these grounds, the Court
unambiguously uttered a note of caution to the effect that
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too, in the rarest of rare cases; the Court also warned
that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice.”
8. Respondents are the sons and daughter in laws of
petitioner. It is evident from trial Court record that civil litigation,
qua the property in question, has been going on between them
before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. There is order of Hon’ble
High Court in favour of petitioner to stay in the property in
question. The will which is subject matter of dispute is already in
issue in the Civil Suit. There is no infirmity in the impugned
order as the identity of respondents are known to the petitioner
and the documents, if any required, may be proved by
summoning the record of civil cases going on between the
parties. Moreover, ld. Trial Court has also specified that if there
is need that arises, later on, qua any disputed fact, the provisions
of Section 202 Cr.P.C. may be resorted to.
9. In view of the same, revision lacks merits calling any
C.R. No. 194/2024 Satya Bhushan Jain Vs. Punit Jain & ors. Page no. 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
interference. Hence the petition is dismissed. Copy of this
judgment be sent to ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
Date : 06.03.2025
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/06.03.2025
Dictated on : 06.03.2025
Transcribed on : 06.03.2025
checked on : 06.03.2025
Signed on : 06.03.2025
(Vikram)
ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS),
North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/06.03.2025
C.R. No. 194/2024 Satya Bhushan Jain Vs. Punit Jain & ors. Page no. 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --