Narender v. State

ORDER %

11.11.2010 This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR under Section 420/468/471 read with Section 34 of IPG on the basis of compromise arrived at between Harsawroop, complainant and Nareflder one of the accused. The property in dispute belonged to Harsawroop. One Vijender is stated to have made forged documents in respect of this property and sold it to the accused Narender posing himself as Mahesh Sharma. Narender constructed house over this property. When the complainant learnt that his property had been grabbed he made a complaint. Vijender@Vijay@Mahesh Sharma is in judicial custody. Narender the present applicant was also in judicial custody and was released by this Court on interim bail. It is submitted by the Counsel that Narender had no role in forging of documents rather he was the victim. I consider that this aspect can be Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. decided by the trial Court and trial Court would be in a position to ascertain whether Narender had a role in forging of documents or not. In any case, since Narender has given up the possession of the disputed property to Harswaroop and Harswaroop is present in the Court and acknowledges receiving possession of the property, I consider that under these circumstances let the Narender be granted regular bail instead of quashing of FIR so that justice is done to the victim Harswaroop and criminals areiarought to the book. I am told that Vijender is a habitual land grabber and is involved in 14 more cases of similar nature quashing of this FIR would result in letting off such serious criminals. This petition is therefore not allowed and FIR is not quashed. However, this petition is converted into bail application. It is directed that Narender be released on bail on his executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The proceedings before the trial Court shall continue and be brought to a logical end. Dasti. NOVEMBER 11,2010 vn SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA.J

$-4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRLM.C. 3460/2010 NARENDER Petitioner Througin; Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Advocate versus STATE Respondent Through; K/It\ Sunil Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA