The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to weigh evidence at the stage of framing charges, the requirement for grave suspicion to frame charges, and the court's jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
Property Dispute - Indian Penal Code - 323/354/354B/376/506/34 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including sections 323, 354, 354B, 376, 506, and 34, and their interpretations in the context of a property dispute. The court's decision was influenced by the principles established in various cases, including the power of the Trial Court to sift and weigh evidence at the stage of framing charges, the need for grave suspicion to frame charges, and the court's jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a property dispute between the parties, leading to a violent incident. The accused sought to set aside the charges framed against them under sections 323, 354, 354B, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the order on charges passed by the Trial Court and directed it to reconsider the charges in light of the submissions made by the petitioner and the FSL report. The petitioner was given the option to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum.
Issues: The main issues included the framing of charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the admissibility of the FSL report. The court also considered the credibility of the evidence presented by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles established in previous cases, emphasizing the need for grave suspicion to frame charges and the court's jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the Trial Court was directed to reconsider the charges. Pending applications were disposed of, and the order was to be uploaded on the court's website.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Since the above-captioned 3 petitions pertain to common impugned order, therefore, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Vide order dated 23.01.2020, this Court passed order as under:

"3. Vide present petitions, the petitioners seek direction to setting aside order on charge dated 07.08.2019 passed by Ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No.146/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 323/354/354B/376/506/34 IPC registered at PS Roop Nagar.

4. The facts of the case are that Sh. Hari Pal Singh Tandon, father of Vishal Tandon i.e. petitioner in Crl.Rev.P. 1025/2019 (accused No.1), is co-owner of the property bearing 46-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter shall be referred as 'Property') and was in exclusive possession of entire undivided property. He is still in exclusive possession of one garage & one bathroom at ground floor and entire portion on first and second floor of the property. One Smt. Maya w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar is also co-owner of the above detailed property, however, she was not in physical possession of any portion of above detailed property. She has illegally grabbed certain portion in the property and even created third party rights with respect to a shop located in suit property. The property is situated on the main road of Kamla Nagar Market. Hari Pal Singh Tandon, Har Jit Singh Tandon and Late Rajinder Singh Tandon are real brothers and admittedly the property was jointly owned by their late father Kartar Singh Tandon. After the sad demise of Late Shri Kartar Singh Tandon on 19.3.1977, the property came to be in possession and occupation of his three sons on the basis of Will dated 10.06.1961 registered on 15.06.1963 whereby the entire property was bequeathed in favour of his three sons by Late Kartar Singh Tandon in equal shares. The property was indivisible and undivided Hindu property and meant for residence of the family of Late Kartar Singh Tandon. Hari Pal Singh Tandon was/is residing with his family in the entire suit property except the portions occupied by the tenants. Other two brothers of Hari Pal Singh Tandon were residing separately in their separate residences and had no material concern with the property except their shares in the suit property. Brothers of Hari Pal Singh Tandon namely Har Jit Singh Tandon and Late Rajinder Singh Tandon sold their respective shares in the suit property vide Registered Sale Deed dated 27.08.2003 and 15.09.2003 to Adarsh Kumar Oberoi and Om Prakash. Hari Pal Singh Tandon challenged the validity and legality of sale deeds dated 27.08.2003 and 15.09.2003 to Adarsh Kumar Oberoi and Om Prakash by way of filing a Civil Suit No. S-224/04 before the concerned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

5. On the other hand, after the registration of sale deeds in favour of abovementioned persons, said persons sold the property in questions (share of the property as they purchased) to Smt. Maya vide executing registered sale deed dated 19.07.2007. However, possession was not handed over to her as no partition had taken place by that time. The aforesaid suit was disposed off vide judgment and decree dated 25.08.2010 passed learned ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, Hari Pal Singh Tandon filed a Regular First Appeal No.668/2010 before this court. The said RFA was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.2014 after noticing the fact that no oral partition has taken place and passed the following order:

"Appellant filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. During the trial it was pleaded by respondent nos.1 and 2 that an oral partition had taken place amongst the appellant and respondent nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, issue no. 5 was framed by the trial court in this regard.

While deciding issue no.5 Trial court has held that oral partition took place.