W.P.(CRL) 1978/2022 Page 1 of 13

$~63

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 15^th January, 2024

+

W.P.(CRL) 1978/2022 & CRL.M.A.17120/2022

VIVEK KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Shreshth Jain, Advocate.

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with

Mr.

Abhijeet

Kumar,

Advocate

with

SI

Ghanshyam, P.S. S.B. Dairy

Mr. Nitin Goel, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1.

This petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of

notice under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C. and Kalandra dated 24.04.2022.

2.

The chronology of dates and events to the extent necessary and

relevant and as emerging from the narrative in the petition is that father of

the Petitioner namely, Sh. Rakesh Kumar is the owner of Flat bearing No.

402, Block-D, Sector-29, Fourth Floor, Rohini, New Delhi (hereinafter

referred to as the “Subject Premises”), right and title to which flows from

the Conveyance Deed executed on 22.02.2013 between Petitioner’s father

and husband of Respondent No. 2 herein. It is averred that Sh. Anil Kumar,

the husband of Respondent No. 2 works as a TTE, with the Indian Railways

and had approached Petitioner’s father in October, 2018 to take the flat on

Digitally Signed

By:KAMAL KUMAR

Signing Date:20.01.2024

10:05:38

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 1978/2022 Page 2 of 13

rent for residential purposes. It was portrayed by Respondent No. 2 and her

husband that they require the premises for their self-use and will be taking

care of the flat in the best possible manner.

3.

It is further stated that believing the words of Respondent No. 2 and

her husband, Petitioner’s father agreed to rent out the flat for a period of 22

months commencing from 15.09.2018 and a Rent Agreement was executed

on 20.10.2018 between Respondent No. 2’s husband and father of the

Petitioner and subject premises was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-

for 11 months and at a rent of Rs.16,500/- for the next 11 months.

Rs.30,000/- was agreed to be deposited as security by the tenant.

4.

It is the case of the Petitioner that on 15.07.2020, the tenancy came to

an end and despite repeated requests by the Petitioner, the subject premises

was not vacated by the tenants and therefore, their status was of

unauthorized occupants post 15.07.2020. In February, 2022, husband of

Respondent No. 2 informed that he had been allotted a flat in Sonipat but

despite this they did not vacate the tenanted premises. On 24.04.2022,

Petitioner’s father went to inspect the subject premises and found that a

stranger was occupying the said premises and it was clear that the tenanted

premises had been sub-let. Immediately, Police was called to ascertain the

status of the person occupying the premises. Later in the evening, a

statement was made by Respondent No. 2 and her husband before the Police

that the third person was their servant and accordingly, the complaint was

closed. Again on 16.08.2022, when the Petitioner and his father went to the

subject premises, they found a fourth person residing therein and on

contacting Respondent No. 2’s husband, there was no response.

Digitally Signed

By:KAMAL KUMAR

Signing Date:20.01.2024

10:05:38

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 1978/2022 Page 3 of 13

5.

Instead of vacating the subject premises, to the utter surprise of the

Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 and her husband made a complaint against the

Petitioner that he was threatenin