JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been filed, inter-alia, praying for setting aside 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.08/2021, Criminal Revision No.09/2021 & Criminal Revision No.169/2020.

2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in an application filed by the petitioner/ complainant under Section 156(3) CrPC had passed an order dated 15.12.2020 directing registration of the FIR against Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 and others, under Sections 468/471/467/405/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). By the impugned order, the learned ASJ has set aside the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the learned MM in relation to Respondent No. 3&4.

Brief facts

3. The facts which led to filing of the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC by the petitioner are stated as below :

3.1. Petitioner claimed to be 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 Ms. Baruna Madan and Ms. Manika Madan (Respondent No.3 & 4).

3.2. It was stated that Ms. Lalita Thakur (Respondent No.2) was inducted as a tenant in the property by the petitioner's father in his life time for running a firm named M/s Prime Infotech. Petitioner claimed that in the month of December 2019, she found out that the Respondent No. 2, got a new electricity meter sanctioned in her name from BSES Rajdhani, vide CA No. 150774852 with Energization date 22-05-2013 (after the death of Complainant's father Shri Baldev Raj Madan on 11.01.2013) at the same above mentioned address without taking any NOC from petitioner.

3.3. That on discovering the information, the petitioner visited the BSES office wherein she found that the Respondent No. 2 has submitted the following documents :

i. Affidavit cum NOC issued by Late Shri Tilak Raj Madan and Late Shri. Baldev Raj Madan dated 09.04.2013.

ii. Notary attested Rent agreement, with 2 witnesses, signed by Late Shri Tilak Raj Madan and Late Shri Baldev Raj Madan vide dated 09.03.2013.

iii. Photocopy of PAN Card of Late Shri Baldev Raj Madan duly attested and signed by Late Shri Baldev Raj Madan and notarized on 07.04.2013.

iv. Photocopy of PAN Card of Late Shri Tilak Raj Madan duly attested and signed by Late Shri Tilak Raj Madan and notarized on 07.04.2013.

v. Perpetual Lease attested and signed by Late Shri Tilak Raj Madanand Late Shri Baldev Raj Madan vide dated 07.04.2013.

It is stated that all these documents were shown to have been executed in favour of Respondent No. 2, between the month of March and April of 2013, when both, Late Shri Tilak Raj Madan as well as Late Shri Baldev Raj Madan had already expired. The petitioner states that the said documents could have only been provided to the Respondent No. 2, only by Respondent No. 3 and 4, since they were the only ones in possession of original documents.

3.4. Petitioner relying upon the proceeding in Test Case 4/2016 alleged that the Respondent No. 3 and 4 are acting in collusion.

3.5. Thus, the petitioner claims that the aforementioned fact, and the execution, attestation and drawing of documents after the death of the executor of such documents clearly shows Cheating as well as Forgery on part of all three respondents, which they did with the common intention of duping the petitioner and obtain and electrify a new BSES meter in the name of Respondent No. 2.

3.6. Petitioner submits that since the BSES is not under the purview of RTI, she is unable to obtain the documents on the basis of which the Respondent No. 2 has been able to obtain and electrify the said new meter.

3.7. It is submitted that the complainant/petitioner has already filed an eviction suit agains