RANJEET KUMAR CHOUDHARY vs MAHESH BAGCHANDKA AND ANOTHER

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14.02.2024

+ CRL.M.C. 843/2024 & CRL.M.A. 3373/2024
RANJEET KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.W.Nomani, Adv.

versus

MAHESH BAGCHANDKA AND ANOTHER….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Hemant Shah, Mr.S.Singh, Mr.Akshay Rana, Mr.Prashant Kumar, Mr.Saurabh Pal, Advs.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘CrPC’) assailing the order dated 09.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in CR No.140/2023, titled as Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary v. Maheseh Bhagchandka & Anr.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner herein filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., complaining therein that the respondents had encroached upon the land of the Delhi Development Authority (in short, ‘DDA’).
3. By an order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the learned MM-06, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, the said complaint was dismissed by the learned MM, observing as under:
“From the perusal of the record, the testimony of the witnesses and the documents annexed therewith, in the opinion of this court no cognizable offence is made out against the accused persons. As discussed above, the case of the complainant is of illegal encroachment but there is no person identifiable against whom the criminal breach of trust, tresspass or forgery is said to be committed therein. The land in question was allotted by the DDA and DDA has not moved any application against the accused person for committing the criminal breach of trust or forgery of documents pertaining to the land in question. On face the present case appears to be a case of civil nature wherein the proper remedy before the complainant is to approach appropriate civil court for the allegation of encroachment if any. Also the inquiry report filed by the SI Umesh Rana dated 29.03.2017 on record also did not Find any fool play by the accused persons and it is also submitted by way of the said inquiry report that before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court the DDA stated to have removed the encroachment which were complained by the present complainant and no encroachment was done by the respondent/accused persons and the entire construction is within the demarcated area of 4.54 Acres. It was further stated by the DDA before Hon’ble Delhi High Court that in case, the petitioner points out any future encroachment, They shall take action to remove the same immediately.
With these observations the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi disposed off the writ petition filed by the complainant and the second writ petition filed by the complainant against the accused person was also withdrawn by the complainant. The DDA before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi clearly stated that the development activities have been carried out as per the sanction building plan and the allegation of any encroachment is baseless and as per the demarcation no encroachment was found on the land in question.
In view of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case no cognizable offence is made out in the present matter and no criminal action is required against the accused person. Thus, no ground is made out for taking cognizance. The complainant has no locus standi as the DDA is the allotting agency and any encroachment is found then DDA is at liberty to take any appropriate action as per law.”

4. Feeling aggrieved of the above order, the petitioner challenged the same by way of the above mentioned Revision Petition, being CR No.140/2023. The same has been dismissed by the order dated 09.08.2023, which is impugned in the present petition, observing as under:
“10. The revisionist, in the instant revision petition, has contended that the respondents have encroached more land than allotted, where he is residing, and such encroachment violates the environmental norms and needs of public at large. However, the revisionist could not show as to how his right is being infringed by the respondents, when he has ‘no locus standi’, as it is DDA who is the allotting agency, and who remains at liberty, to take appropriate action as per law, if any encroachment is noticed. In the present revision petition, the revisionist has not mentioned anything about the writ petition, filed by him before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, as discussed by the Ld. MM in the impugned order dated 25.03.2023 “DDA being the Authority in charge, has already made a statement before the Hon’ble High Court, to the effect, that no encroachment has been done by the respondents‘ firm and Hon’ble High Court having accepted the submissions obviously puts the matter to rest. By changing forums, the revisionist/complainant cannot pray to the Ld. Trial Court to overreach the mandate/decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. It is also quite apparent that the dispute, if any, is civil in nature.
The ld. MM, after going through the complainant’s evidence. The material placed on record, and considering the status of writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2023. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances and the discussion made above. The revisionist could not establish his locus standi, and thus, the impugned order does not require any intervention. As a result when there is no illegality, impropriety or flaw in finding or in its correctness. The revision stands dismissed.”

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the statement of Sh.Vikram Yadav (CW-5), submits that the said witness has duly proved his Survey Report showing that the respondents are in possession of the 5.061 acres of land as against 4.54 acre that was allotted to them by the DDA. He submits that therefore, the complaint case filed by the petitioner could not have been dismissed.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on an advance notice, submits that the complaint and all the consequential proceedings, including the present petition, have been filed by the petitioner in gross abuse of the process of the Court, concealing various vital and important facts which otherwise should have been disclosed.
7. He submits that prior to the filing of the complaint, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.820/2014, titled as Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors., which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 04.02.2014, with liberty to file an appropriate petition in form of a Public Interest Litigation.
8. In terms of the liberty granted, the petitioner filed another petition, being W.P.(C) No.2208/2014, titled as Ranjit Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors., which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 16.07.2014, recording the submission of the learned counsel for the DDA to the effect that all encroachments which had been complained of by the petitioner had been removed and as of then, there was no encroachment and the entire construction was within the demarcated area of 4.5 acres. The Division Bench directed the DDA to take action to remove future encroachment, if any reported.
9. The petitioner, not being satisfied with the above direction, filed applications, being CRL.M.A. Nos.18192/2014 and 4163/2015, which were withdrawn by the petitioner on 18.03.2015.
10. Still not satisfied, the petitioner then filed yet another petition, being W.P.(C) No.5305/2015, titled as Ranjit Kumar Choudhary v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 27.05.2015.
11. The petitioner then filed a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, being CONT. CAS.(C) No. 6/2016, titled as Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary v. Arun Goel & Anr., which again was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 11.01.2016.
12. The petitioner along with a few others then filed a Civil Suit before the Court of the learned Sr. Civil Judge, being CS No.362/2016, concealing the fact of filing of the above mentioned writ petitions, and when confronted, withdrew the said Suit vide order dated 15.03.2017.
13. It is at that stage, that the petitioner filed the above mentioned complaint, however, while the said complaint was pending, the petitioner along with a few others, filed yet another civil suit, being CS No.2527/2017, which again was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 22.11.2017.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the above facts have all been concealed from this Court in the present petition. He submits that the present petition is a gross abuse of the process of law, as the petitioner is only trying to blackmail the respondents.

Analysis and Conclusion
15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
16. It is clear from the entire history of various litigations initiated by the petitioner against the respondents that the petitioner has been repeatedly abusing the process of the Court by filing repeated petitions/suits by concealing the previous litigations filed by the petitioner. When confronted, the petitioner simply withdraws these petitions without having any repercussion of the same. The process of criminal jurisprudence cannot be allowed to be misused in this manner.
17. In the present case, for cogent reasons, the learned MM dismissed the complaint case filed by the petitioner, which order has been rightly upheld by the learned Revisional Court again for valid reasons. No infirmity is found in the said orders. This court does not sit as a Court of Appeal against the Impugned Order.
18. Even otherwise, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner concealing the above mentioned litigations and by making reference only to writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2208/2014 (wrongly typed as WP(C) No.2208/2012 in the list of dates). Concealment itself is a ground to dismiss the present petition. I am refraining myself from taking further action against the petitioner for having committed contempt of this Court by misusing its process.
19. I, therefore, find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed, with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the ‘Delhi High Court Clerks Welfare Association’ within a period of two weeks from today.
20. It is further directed that in case the petitioner is to initiate any further litigation against the respondents in any form in relation to the same cause of action, petitioner shall bring to the notice of the Court concerned, the order passed today.
21. The pending application is also disposed of.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2024
RN/ss
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

CRL.M.C. 843/2024 Page 8 of 8