SURAJ BHAN vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, THROUGH PS UTTAM NAGAR DWARKA & ANR.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 19.04.2023
% Pronounced on : 29.11.2023

+ CRL.M.C. 2728/2023
SURAJ BHAN ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Pathak and Mr. Ishank Gupta, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, THROUGH PS UTTAM NAGAR DWARKA & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for the State with SI Dimpy Gulia, P.S.Uttam Nagar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P. C. by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 56/2023 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar.
2. Heard.
3. Records perused.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the lawful owner of the plot in question and the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 is false and fabricated. It is further submitted that complaint against the petitioner has been filed to pressurize him for withdrawing his complaint which he had filed against the respondent no. 2 for handing over the property papers and keys of the said plot. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has preferred the complaint against the petitioner as the petitioner had refused to hand over the property documents and keys to respondent no.2. It is further submitted that on the prima facie view of facts of the case, no criminal liability is made out against the petitioner as the dispute is purely civil in nature.
5. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State appears on advance notice and accepts notice.
6. It is submitted by learned APP that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and he has prepared false registry documents with regard to the property of the respondent no. 2 in his own name. It is further submitted that allegations of forgery is a question of fact and the same can only be decided on the basis of the evidence which is to be led by the parties during the course of the trial.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and having gone through the FIR, it is observed that, according to the complainant, his land was captured by the petitioner illegally and the petitioner had also started construction work on the said land. It is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner tried to get a loan against the property of the respondent no. 2 and he even managed to arrange a fake registry of the property in question in his own name.
8. During the course of arguments, learned APP has drawn the attention of this Court to relevant portion of the FIR wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has documents which shows that Khasra No. mentioned in the registry of the petitioner is 84/4/14, the same is not correct, as the actual Khasra No. is 65/19 which is matching with the government records as well as with the property papers of respondent no. 2.
9. The instant case is a case which cannot be decided until and unless the parties lead their respective evidences in the Trial Court, as both the parties are claiming different Khasra Nos., which can only be decided only when the revenue records of the land, will be produced. Therefore, in these circumstances, the present FIR cannot be quashed as the matter in question concerns a mixed question of law and facts.
10. In view of the above terms, the petition is dismissed accordingly.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
p

CRL.M.C. 2728/2023 Page 1 of 3