The main legal point established is that an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is revisable if it has the effect of terminating the proceedings, and the allegations must ex facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offense to warrant the registration of an FIR.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is filed challenging the common judgment / order dated 03.01.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) (hereinafter referred as “the impugned order”) in Criminal Revision No.167/2020 and Criminal Revision No.168/2020.

2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC being C.C. Number 3379/2020 filed by petitioner/ complainant, by its order dated 19.12.2020 directed registration of FIR under section 405, 406, 410, 411, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), against Baruna Madan (Respondent No. 2), Ms. Manika Madan (Respondent No. 3) and Ms. Lalita Thakur. The said order was set aside by the impugned order in revision Petitions number 167/2020 and 168/2020 filed by Respondent No. 2 and 3 respectively, which has led to filing of the present petition.

Brief facts

3. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) r/w 200 Cr.P.C. on 18.09.2020 before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. It has been alleged by the petitioner in the complaint that :

3.1. Petitioner is the owner of property bearing No. A-38/1, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-1, Mayapuri, New Delhi-11064 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Property’), by virtue of the last will, dated 27.02.2012 executed by her late father Shri Baldev Raj Madan in her favour and to the exclusion of her siblings, Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. Baldev Raj Madan expired on 11.01.2013.

3.2. It was alleged that the petitioner had entrusted the Property to Mr. Meheresh Lalit, Baruna Madan (Respondent No. 2), Ms. Manika Madan (Respondent No. 3) for looking after and other ancillary works in relation to tenants in this building after the death of her father in January 2013. At the time of entrustment and dominion of the Property to above mentioned three persons, Mr. Meheresh Lalit was already running a company by the name of M/s Prime Infotech and was a tenant at ground floor of the Property. It is also stated that the original papers of the Property were in possession of Respondent No. 2 & 3.

3.3. After the death of their father, the inter-personal relations in between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 & 3, became strained and due to which, Respondent No. 3 with the aid of Respondent No. 2 has filed a suit bearing no. CS(OS) 1900/2015 which is pending before the court for the partition of the Property and other assets of Late Shri Baldev Raj Madan. The Court vide its order dated 07.07.2015 granted an injunction from creation of any third-party rights in the Property.

3.4. It was alleged that in the month of December 2019, while surfing internet, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that M/s Eminent Audio Visual Pvt. Ltd. (EAVPL) got itself registered with the office of Registrar of Companies (ROC), Delhi, on 17th June 2016 by mentioning the registered office at the Property without obtaining any No Objection Certificate from the petitioner. On further enquiry with ROC Delhi, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that Ms. Lalita Thakur, along-with others being directors of EAVPL at different periods during the usage of the Property in connivance with Respondent no. 2 & 3 got the EAVPL registered at the address of the Property, by showing herself as the owner and the same fact was never brought to the knowledge of the petitioner.

3.5. The petitioner in her complaint has alleged that Ms. Lalita Thakur being the director of EAVPL and the tenant at the demised Property, got the company registered at the Property and stopped paying any rent/ occupational charges. Furthermore, the petitioner alleged that all the documents of the Property were in possession of respondents no. 2 and 3, for the regular upkeep and maintenance of the Property. It was alleged that all the requisite permissions and registration with the ROC could not have been obtained without the assistance of Respondent No.2 & 3 and therefore an illegal act with common intention to defrau