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