Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. At the outset learned Counsel for the respondent states that the additional affidavit and rejoinder filed by the petitioner have not been received by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he would not rely on any part of the additional affidavit or the rejoinder and the matter may be heard on the basis of the petition and the counter affidavit. Accordingly, I have proceeded to hear the learned Counsel at length.

.2. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the SHO, P.S. Kalkaji on 14.5.2004 against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 Rajesh Dogra and Rakesh Dogra. The gravamen of the said complaint was that on the said date he had received a threatening and malacious call on his mobile phone from respondent Nos. 2 & 3. It was alleged that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were notorious/prefessional `goondas of the area. He further stated that he is an orthopedic surgeon having his clinic at L-1/8 Kalkaji, New Delhi. He had purchased Flat No. L-1/119A, DDA Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi from one Shri Ram Hari Sharma on 6.11.2002 by a registered deed. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were alleged to have visited the petitioners clinic after about a month

.of the purchase of the said flat and to have claimed that Shri Ram Hari Sharma wanted to sell the flat through them, but he had sold the flat without paying any commission, which was claimed to be around Rs. 1 lakh. It was further alleged that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 demanded the said amount of commission from the complainant which he refused to pay, since he had never approached them ( i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) as an agent for the purchase of the flat and it was a direct deal between the complainant and Shri Ram Hari Sharma, the owner of the flat. It was alleged that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 threatened and intimidated the complainant that they must get the commission of Rs. 1 lakh, otherwise they would kill the complainant and make the flat a graveyard. It was further stated that the complainant proposed to sell the flat and that the said respondent Nos. 2 & 3 threatened even the proposed buyers who visited the flat to finalise the bargain. The complaint further states that "One of them who was keen to purchase the Flat, recorded the threats in his Tape Recorder, the transcript of which is being filed shortly for perusal. You may today like to hear the tape recording, as the Goondas threatened to kill me by name and making the said flat a grave yard. It has given me continuous and recurring anxiety as to how to get rid of the said extortionists, who are known `Don goondas having connection with the under world Mafia."

3. On the basis of said complaint FIR No. 495/2004 under Sections 387/506 IPC was registered at P.S. Kalkaji on 31.5.2004 after the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the said purpose. On 23.1.2004 respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were admitted to bail after they had been arrested, with the condition that they shall not try to contact the complainant/petitioner personally or otherwise. The police filed charge sheet against respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 387 & 506 IPC dated 12.1.2005. In the meantime, on 15.9.2005 the petitioner transferred/sold the said flat to one Mrs. Meera Singh. On 5.10.2005. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to which they pleaded "not guilty".

4. The petitioner filed a complaint with the SHO, P.S. Kalkaji on 23.1.2007 alleging that both the accused/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 visited the petitioners clinic on 23.1.2007 and extended a threat through one Mr.Piyush, Mr. Ramashankar and Mr. Sharvan to warn the petitioner not to go for tendering his evidence against the accused in Court on 24.1.2007 at Patiala House. It was further alleged that they conveyed a similar threat to Mrs. Meera Singh to warn the petitioner of dire consequences if he goes on 24.1.2007 to the Court to lead evidence on behalf of the prosecution.

.5. On 25.1.2007