Point of Law : Scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent, is narrow. It has to be exercised only in rare cases where perversity is writ large in orders impugned, or decisions of courts below have resulted in grave mis-carriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) by one of the accused summoned by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, Delhi vide orders dated 22nd October, 2017 to face trial in Complaint Case bearing No.27/01/13 filed by the respondent under Sections 442/506 IPC against him and another accused.

2. It may be mentioned here that the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint on 25th March, 2013 along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR alleging that the petitioner had trespassed into her house and had also extended threats. The application under Section 156(3) was disallowed on the ground that the allegations could be proved by oral testimony and accordingly, the learned MM directed the respondent/complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence. Accordingly, she got four witnesses examined, namely, herself (CW-1), Sh.Vijay Mukhiya (CW-2), Sh. Ashutosh Gaur (CW-3) and Sh. Ranjan Gaur (CW-4). On the basis of the complaint and evidence, the learned MM summoned the petitioner and his son-in-law (Vishal Saluja) for facing trial under Sections 442/506 IPC. This order dated 22nd October, 2017 was challenged in revision before the Sessions Court and vide impugned order dated 30th October, 2018, the learned ASJ dismissed the revision petition, also opining that there were specific allegations of trespassing and threatening in the testimonies of the witnesses.

3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 30th October, 2018 of the learned Sessions Judge be set aside and consequently, the summoning order dated 22nd October, 2017 be also quashed.

4. It is the contention of Mr.Sujan Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute was materially in the nature of a civil dispute and that too, between his son-in-law (Vishal Saluja) and the respondent, who were brother and sister. The property in question, being H.No.G-3, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi, belonged to the parents of the respondent and son-in-law of the petitioner, in which, upon their demise, the respondent claimed a share to the extent of 83.3% recognizing that the petitioner’s son-in-law was entitled to the remaining 16.7% share. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, it was contended that no criminal offence was made out and the complaint was liable to be quashed.

5. It is further contended that the witnesses have assigned no role to the petitioner and that he has been roped in only to pressurize his son-in-law to arrive at some kind of settlement with the respondent. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that whatever evidence had come on record was only hearsay evidence, which had no evidentiary value, and therefore, no charge would be substantiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witnesses have only claimed to have heard some noise and to have then investigated, to find out that a fresh lock had been placed on the door of the premises. The testimony of the servant, who claimed to have seen the trespass occurring, as also the theft of a black bag containing Rs.90,000/- and jewellery, was unreliable and was clearly a planted witness. CW-3 and CW-4 were not the eye-witnesses, so also the complainant, who has testified to having been informed of the occurrence. In addition, it was submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have deferred issuance of process under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as the co-accused did not reside within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court as he was a resident of the USA.

6. With regard to the alleged trespass, it was contended that since the property belonged to the son-in-law of the petitioner, there could be no trespass. Furthermore, the order passed in the civil suit filed by the respondent No.2 directing status