CRL.M.C. 6101/2018

Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 22^nd July, 2022

+

CRL.M.C. 6101/2018, CRL.M.A.48622/2018

MOHINDER PAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sujan Puri, Advocate

versus

RIMA GULSHAN

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Ms. Shelly Dixit

and

Ms.

Puja

Singha

Roy,

Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

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 22^nd 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 25^th 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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002729

CRL.M.C. 6101/2018

Page 2 of 9

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 22^nd October, 2017 was

challenged in revision before the Sessions Court and vide impugned order

dated 30^th 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 30^th October, 2018 of the learned Sessions

Judge be set aside and consequently, the summoning order dated 22^nd

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

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002729

CRL.M.C. 6101/2018

Page 3 of 9

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 occu