Hima Kohli, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.133/2013 lodged under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station: Kalkaji, New Delhi.

2. The prayers made in the present petition are premised on an argument that any FIR registered on the complaint of a General Power of Attorney holder of the complainant, in the absence of knowledge of the subject matter of the complaint attributable to the Power of Attorney holder, ought not to be entertained and in the present case, as the subject FIR has been registered by the police on a complaint received from Mr. Gurdip Singh Samagh, General Power of Attorney holder of Mrs. Balbir Kaur and Mrs. Jasbir Kaur, both residents of Ontario, Canada, against the petitioner and his two sons, Navrinder Singh and Harvinder Singh in respect of a residential premises bearing No.E-88, Kalkaji, New Delhi, the same ought to be quashed.

3. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a recent decision dated 13.09.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.73/2007 entitled A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. He has also placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs vs. Hartar Singh Sangha reported as (2010) 10 SCC 512 to urge that personal knowledge of the attorney holder is a pre-requisite for giving evidence.

4. Before considering the aforesaid proposition canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, it is considered necessary to briefly recapitulate the facts of the case as culled out from the status report filed by the State.

5. In the month of November, 2012, a complaint had been filed in the EOW, Crime Branch, Delhi by Mr.Gurdip Singh Samagh, power of attorney of Mrs.Balbir Kaur and Mrs.Jasbir Kaur, that their father, Dr.Tara Singh had purchased the subject premises in the year 1962 and he was living in the said premises with his family comprising of his wife and three daughters, namely, Balbir Kaur, Jasbir Kaur and Kawalbir Kaur. In the year 1973, Dr.Tara Singh alongwith his family had migrated to Canada and he had rented out the subject property to one Mr. Lamba. In the year 1980, the petitioner herein had taken over possession of the premises from Mr. Lamba as a tenant and he had extended an assurance to Dr. Tara Singh that he would vacate the same as soon as he gets possession of a DDA flat, that he had applied for. However, the petitioner failed to vacate the said premises.

6. In the meantime, Dr. Tara Singh, who became a permanent resident in Canada, authorized his nephew to find a suitable buyer for the aforesaid premises but the Sale Deed could not be executed due to the hurdles allegedly created by the petitioner. As per the complainant, Dr. Tara Singh and his family members had not visited India after the year 1976. On 11.11.1991, Dr. Tara Singh expired in Canada and was survived by his wife and three daughters. His wife had expired on 07.01.2001 and the third daughter, Kawalbir Kaur also expired on 03.10.2008 in Canada. Even after the demise of Dr. Tara Singh, the petitioner did not vacate the premises and he kept on contacting Ms. Balbir Kaur and Ms. Jasbir Kaur pursuading them to sell the property to him.

7. As per the complainants, in the year 2012, when they were planning to visit India, they had requested the petitioner to vacate the subject property but he had refused to do so and instead had asserted that he is the legal owner thereof. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner, the legal heirs of Dr. Tara Singh were compelled to file the present complaint through Mr. Gurdip Singh Samagh, brother-in-law of Ms. Balbir Kaur, resulting in registration of the subject FIR.

8. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the facts set out in the status report and submit