The main legal point established in the judgment is the difference in the standard of proof in civil and criminal proceedings, emphasizing that a dispute arising from a sale deed was a civil matter and not a criminal trespass.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. The petitioner Dharmender Choudhary is invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against the impugned order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the learned ASJ in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2011 title as Dharmender Choudhary v. State & Ors. wherein the learned ASJ has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts stated are that an FIR No.700/97 under Sections 420/448/341/120-B IPC was registered on 01.07.1997 on the instance of Bhupender Choudhary and Dharmender Choudhary sons of Mr. M.S. Choudhary at police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi alleging therein that on 14.05.1997 Mr. M.P.G. Singh had sold the property bearing No. C-111 East of Kailash, New Delhi to him i.e. Mr. Bhupender Choudhary and Dharmender Choudhary. As per the sale deed a part of aforesaid property was delivered to them on same day but the possession of the remaining portion could not be taken as it was in the possession of Alok Ahuja (Respondent No.3) who is the husband of the niece of M.P.G. Singh. On the same date i.e. 14.05.1997 petitioner’s family friend Ashwani Chugh shifted in the aforesaid portion and kept his personal belonging in said bedroom. When he returned in the evening after taking meals he was restrained to enter the premises by the security guard, Mrs. Jasmine Ahuja and Mr. Alok Ahuja. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by Ashwani Chugh that they did not allow him to enter the premises in question. Mr. Ashwani Chugh's statement was recorded on 26.4.1999 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he stated that his goods were removed from the said bedroom.

3. During investigation, it was found that the property in question was on lease from DDA, in favour of Mrs. S.P. Singh, w/o Mr. M.P.G. Singh and the same was mutated in his name on 12.02.93. Thereafter, Mr. M.P.G. Singh entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s. Bawa Developers, in respect of plot No.C-111, East of Kailash, New Delhi. After that the building was constructed by the builder. Mr. M.P.G Singh became the owner of the entire ground floor/entire basement with 50% undivided share in the land. He also became the owner of the entire basement, consisting of a big hall. The remaining portion i.e. first floor and second floor was in share of the builder. One Sh. Rajiv Garg, Advocate was appointed by the learned Additional District Judge as a local commissioner who inspected the spot on 27.05.1997 and found Mrs. Jasmine Ahuja, Mr. Alok Ahuja, i.e. Respondent No.2, 3 and M.P.G. Singh in exclusive possession of the property. The signature of M.P.G. Singh was obtained and was sent to CFSL. On investigation both Jasmine and Alok Ahuja denied any kind of knowledge regarding sale and transaction of any money between the petitioner/complainant i.e. Dharmender Choudhary and M.P.G. Singh. No recovery could be affected from the possession of the accused as Jasmine and Alok Ahuja were not arrested. On 04.05.1999 M.P.G. Singh was arrested and in his statement to police he deposed that he does not know about goods of Ashwani Chugh only his niece Jasmine Ahuja and her husband knew about the goods of Ashwani Chugh. Jasmine and Alok Ahuja got anticipatory bail in this case. Though Ashwani Chugh produced a key to the police but it did not match with the lock of the doors of the premises, which were old one. In the absence of direct evidence against Alok Ahuja and Jasmine Ahuja their names were placed in column No.2.

4. Consequently, on 30.10.1999 the charge sheet was filed against accused M.P.G. Singh under Sections 420/447/341/120-B IPC and respondents No. 2 and 3 were arrayed in column No.2.

5. On 13.09.2000 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of offence against accused M.P.G. Singh.

6. Thereafter, on 24.12.2001 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons against the respondent No. 2 and 3 under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

7. Against the summoning order dated 24.12.2001 the respondents filed a revisi