The judgment emphasizes the importance of producing vital witnesses and substantiating allegations with concrete evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Asha Menon, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the complainant before the learned Trial Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 14th March, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts in the revision petition CR No. 13/17 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26th July, 2017 of dismissal of his complainant under Section 203 Cr.P.C., passed by the learned ACMM (Shahdara).

2. The petitioner had filed a complaint case alongwith an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate Shahdara. An FIR was directed to be registered and FIR No. 230/2006 under Sections 417/419/420/465/466/467/468/120B IPC, PS Anand Vihar was registered. But the investigating agency filed a Cancellation Report as the investigations did not reveal the commission of any offence. However, the petitioner being dissatisfied, sought the revival of his complaint, which was allowed on 4th December, 2007. The petitioner examined seven witnesses in support of the complaint, the CW-7 being himself.

3. After considering all these materials, the learned ACMM vide the order dated 26th July, 2017 considered there was no material upon which to summon the proposed accused persons. Thus, it dismissed the complaint. A revision petition was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who, vide the impugned order dated 14th March, 2019, concluded that the Revision Petition was bereft of any merit and dismissed the same.

4. Before this court, it has been urged by Mr. Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned courts below had not properly applied their minds and had, therefore, passed erroneous orders.

5. It may be noted that while dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court does not exercise an appellate jurisdiction. The petitioner is required to point out the errors that have been committed by the courts below which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It appears that the petitioner has been unsuccessful in this attempt.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned courts below had overlooked the documentary evidence which clearly showed that the respondents No. 2 and 3 had impersonated the original allottee being Ms. Swarn Lata, D/o Mr. Harish Chand, to illegally sell the property being Plot No. 184 measuring 355.50 sq. yards in the area now known as Saini Enclave at Vikas Marg, Delhi. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the original perpetual Lease Deed 6th November, 1975, registered with the Sub-Registrar Office, Delhi. was executed by the DDA in favor of Saini Co-operative Building Society. The sub-lease of Plot No. 184 was executed in favour of Ms. Swarn Lata, D/o Harish Chand vide perpetual Sub-Lease Deed dated 3rd April, 1976 which was also duly registered before the Sub-Registrar on 15th June, 1976.

7. Learned counsel drew attention to the details in the stamp affixed on the document to submit that the fabrication of the document took place when instead of writing Ms. Swarn Lata, D/o Harish Chand, the name of Smt. Swarn Lata, wife of S.R. Saini, got recorded. It is the contention of the learned counsel that in separate civil proceedings being Civil Suit No. 357/08 titled Ms. Swarn Lata Vs. Amit Modi, an Intermediate Exam Certificate was filed by the respondent No. 2 to establish her identity, but the witness who had come from the University of Rajasthan had clearly deposed that the Roll Number on this Intermediate Certificate belonged to Ms. Usha Kashyap.

8. Thus, in order to defraud the petitioner who had purchased the plot through an Agreement to Sell for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ms. Swarn Lata, D/o Harish Chand, documents had been created by the respondents. Hence, it was submitted that the dismissal of his complaint was unjustified. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint be restored and the respondents be summoned to face trial.

9. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned APP for th