Pavinder Ahluwalia v. State & Anr

order dated 21.08.1995"

¶9Further Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia in her written statement dated 11th September, 1996 filed in Suit No.192/1995 in para No.5 had admitted that by virtue of the Will executed by Brig. A.S. Ahluwalia, his share had fallen to her share and she had already entered into agreements to sell and handed over the possession.

¶10The petitioner who appears in person has laid great emphasis on the ex-parte injunction granted in Suit No.192/1995 on 21st August, 1995. Admittedly, respondents No. 2 to 8 were not parties to the said suit and the injunction did not bind them. If any ante-dating has been done, the same is by Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia who has since passed away. Further the complaint was not filed by the petitioner during the life time of Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia and filed only after her death. In the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia admitted having received the consideration and delivering the possession in respect of portions of the property in question. Even in the written Statement Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia reiterated the factum of sale of property in question to respondents 2 to 4 herein and receipt of consideration. Along with the charge sheet, copy of the partition suit bearing No.550/1998 filed by the petitioner against his sister was also filed which reiterated the sale of three portions of the property and receipt of the consideration. Even assuming that Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia ante dated the said documents, as noted above, Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia has since passed away and the issue

before this Court is whether charge against respondent Nos. 2 to 8 is liable to be framed or not. Further, if the grievance of the petitioner was ante-dating of agreements to sell by her mother, the complaint ought to have been filed before her death on 15th January, 1997 and not thereafter.

¶11The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there is no material on record to show strong suspicion that respondent Nos. 2 to 8 committed the offence alleged cannot be faulted with.

¶12Consequently, upholding the impugned order, the present petition is dismissed.

¶13Trial Court record be sent back.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MAY 19, 2017 'v mittal'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 16th January, 2017 Decided on: 19th May, 2017 + CRL.M.C. 99/2012 PAVINDER AHLUWALIA ..... Petitioner Represented by: In person. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with SI Madhurendra Kumar, PS EOW. Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv. for R-2. Mr. S.P. Singh Chaudhary, Adv. for R-3 and 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. Pavinder Ahluwalia, the petitioner S/o late Brig. Ajit Singh Ahluwalia and Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia on 2nd January, 1998 lodged FIR No.10/1998 at PS Defence Colony for offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed whereafter on hearing the accused and the State vide the order dated 23rd April, 2004 learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged all the seven accused i.e. Ashok Bhaduria, Prashant Bhaduria, R.C. Goel, Nand Kishore Bindra, R.L. Kapoor, Lt. Col. (Retd.) T.M. Singh and Shyam Sunder Singh, advocate. A revision petition was preferred by the State challenging the order dated 23rd April, 2004 before learned Additional Sessions Judge being Criminal Revision No.31/2004 which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 22nd April, 2006 remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court for framing of charge and proceeding with the trial. Order dated 22nd April, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was challenged by the private respondents before this Court in Crl.M.C. Nos.3189-95/2006. Since no stay was granted by this Court, in the meantime, learned Trial Court framed charge against the private respondents. The order framing charge was also challenged before this Court by filing Crl.Rev. Petition Nos.59/2007 and 107/2007. This Court set aside the order dated 22nd April, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and consequential order dated 9th October, 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate framing charge against the private respondents. Crl.Rev.P. 31/2004 was restored before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for consideration on merits after taking into consideration all the contentions raised by the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 28th April, 2011. Hence the present petition. 2. In the FIR, the petitioner alleged that property No.D-4, Defence Colony (in short 'the property') was part of HUF property of Brig. Ajit Singh Ahluwalia as the karta. On 1st January, 1985 the property was partitioned vide a deed and pursuant thereto the annexe block consisting of ground floor came to the share of the petitioner and first and second floor of the main block went to the share of his father. Ground floor of the main block came to the share of his mother Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia. Brig. Ahluwalia passed away on 25th July, 1987 after being admitted in the Army Hospital for treatment. It is thus alleged that the Will dated 19th July, 1987 purportedly executed by Brig. Ahluwalia on the basis of which Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia claimed ownership of the property was a forged document having been executed, six days prior to the death of the Executor when he was admitted in ICU. Since Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia was intending to sell the main house, the petitioner and his sister filed a civil suit for permanent injunction being Suit No.192/1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts wherein an exparte injunction was granted on 21st August, 1995. After coming to know about the said order dated 21st August, 1995, the respondents purchased stamp papers on 1st September, 1995 and executed ante dated agreements to sell dated 14th August, 1995 to avoid the effect of the said order. Purported to act on the Will dated 19th July, 1987, Smt. Charanjeet Ahluwalia executed three Wills in the office of Sub- Registrar and later on it was revealed that the signatures on the Wills dated 5th October, 1995 did