Mahipal Singh v. State N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors

ORDER %

12.12.2011

¶1This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for issuance of wi'it of certiorari, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing ofFIR No.29 of2009 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing,Delhi and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶2The facts in brief are that one late R.K. Bhalla was the owner of the property bearing number J-12, Green Park,New Delhi.He allegedly executed a Will dated 7.3.1994 in favour ofpetitioner in presence ofone Kimti Lai Jain and Raj Kumar (since deceased). The petitioner filed a probate petition no.85/96 on 23.2.1996 in the court of learned District Judge for grant of probate. In the said petition, the legal heirs of late R.K. Bhalla namely Promila Bhalla wife and son Deepak Bhalla through their special power of attorney Mi". Rajinder Sharma(husband ofthe complainant Mrs.Nita Sharma) filed their objections on 18.2.1998. Later Mr. Rajinder Sharma sought to file objections in the said petition in his personal capacity also and moved an Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ]/ application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party in those proceedings alleging him to be a bonafide purchaser of the said property allegedly bequeathed under the Will in question in favour ofthe petitioner.He also claimed himselfto be in possession ofthe property for number of years having purchased the same from vendees of late R.K. Bhalla. In the meantime, he also filed a complaint with EOW of Delhi police. The said complaint was closed by the department and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by him was also dismissed. Against the said order, a civil revision was prefemed before this Court which was also dismissed on account of non-maintainability. Thereafter, his wife (respondent no.2) herein filed a complaint before the police elaiming herselfto be the owner ofthe part ofthe property in question. In the probate proceedings also she stated having purchased the same along with her husband Ravinder Sharma through the power of attorney executed by the legal heirs of late R.K. Bhalla. She also disputed the execution and validity ofthe Will dated 7.3.1994 and alleged the same to be a forged and fabricated document. It was also alleged by her that the remaining witness to the Will Mr.Kimti Lai Jain was not the signatory of the said Will. She also stated that the complaint earlier filed by her husband was closed by theEOW on the ground that the original Will was not produced by the petitioner.

¶3The case of the petitioner is that initiation of criminal complaint by respondent no.2 herein and registration ofFIR at her instance is nothing but an attempt to seek title ofthe property which is subjudice before the court in probate proceedings. It is also averred that the earlier complaint filed by her husband with EOW ofDelhi Police was closed in the year 2003,the filing of fresh complaint and registration ofFIR 29/2009 against the petitioner at the instance of the respondent Neeta Sharma wife of Ravinder Sharma was nothing but an abuse ofprocess oflaw. Based on these grounds,the aforesaid FIR is sought to be quashed.

¶4It is submitted by learned APP for the State that it was because ofnon filing of the alleged original Will by the petitioner, it was stated that now since the petitioner filed the said original Will in the court where the probate proceedings were pending, that the investigation was condueted on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant/R-2, during investigation it came be revealed thatthe aforesaid property was purchased by late Shadi Lai Bhalla and he executed his Will dated 24.9.1964 in favour ofhis wife late Ram Pyari who further relinquished her rights in favour of her two sons Mr.R.K. Bhalla and Mr. S.K. Bhalla vide the relinquishment deed dated

18.4.1980. Thereafter, vide the relinquishment deed dated 18.9.1987, late S.K.Bhalla and his legal heirs i.e. his wife and sons also relinquished their rights in favour of ^ R.K. Bhalla. Subsequently, R.K. Bhalla collaborated with some builders and constructed flats on the said property and executed an agreement to sell and power ofattorney in respect ofthose flats in favour often different persons in the year 1991-92. Thereafter, S.K. Bhalla filed a petition 1333/92 before this Court seeking cancellation of his relinquishment deed dated 28.12.1987 in favour ofR.K. Bhalla in this Court and this Court vide order dated 16.4.1992 restrained R.K. Bhalla from selling the said property. Further, in the year 2004, vide the compromise,petition 371/2004, legal heirs ofR.K. Bhalla and S.K. Bhalla became owner of50% each in the said property. Mr.R.K.Bhalla - mortgaged the said property to various banks prior to execution of the agreement to sell the flats to different purehasers. The flat owners transferred their rights vide documents such like agreement and GPAs in favour of complainant/ respondent no.2 herein and her husband Rajinder Sharma in the year 1996. The legal heirs of R.K.Bhalla also endorsed the said transfer in favour of respondent no.2/ complainant and her husband and also executed the relevant documents and vide letter dated 1.9.2001 had informed the complainant about filing ofprobate petition by the petitioner and authorizing the complainant and her husband to pursue the said proceedings. A special power ofattorney was also given to Rajinder Sharma to pursue the same. The general power of attorney was executed in favour of complainant and her husband to manage, control and proceedings and sell, mortgage etc. the said property. Some more power of attorneys for doing different works were also given by them in addition to affidavits, undertakings, bonds etc. Rajinder Sharma being the GPA Holder of Lrs of late S.K. Bhalla and being a GPA holder ofsons ofdeceased R.K.Bhalla and also the legal heirs ofS.K. Bhalla transferred 50% shares in favour of his wife Nita Bhalla/ complainant (respondent no.2 herein)by way ofsale deed dated 31.8.2005. The Will dated

7.3.1994 executed by R.K. Bhalla on the letterhead of Swam Kamal Apartments and allegedly witnessed by Kimti Lai Jain and Rajinder Kumar was alleged to be forged and fabricated on various grounds. #)

¶5I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and leamed counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant Neeta Sharma as well as leamed APP for the State.

¶6Drndng investigation it came to be revealed that Raj Kumar,one ofthe witnesses to the Will had expired and Kimti Lai Jain in his statement before . the Court in the probate proceedings stated that he had never met the petitioner prior to 1995.This statement ofKimti Lai was in total contradiction of being a witness on the execution ofthe Will dated 7.3.1994. In the said case, Kimti Lai had also submitted his written statement with his affidavit stating therein that he had never signed the said Will as a witness and stated that the petitioner who was an advocate got his signatures on 3-4 blank papers and on blanlc letterheads 6/7 years back on the pretext that these papers were required for settling of various issues with R.K. Bhalla. It also came to be revealed that Kimti Lai was an old acquaintance oflate R.K. Bhalla and was aware ofsale ofthe property and regarding sale ofthe flats to various persons. R.K. Bhalla was also arrested in the case FIR" No.65/94 Police Station Prashant Nagar and he died injail on 4.6.1994.

¶7The Will dated 7.3.1994 of late R.K. Bhalla made on letterhead of Swam Kamal Apartments was also examined from the FSL. The same is found to be forged and fake document. The probate petition filed by the ( ) petitioner now stands dismissed on the ground that the petition for grant of probate of the Will dated 7.3.1994 filed by Mahipal Singh enumerating various factors raised suspicion about the authenticity ofthe said Will.

¶8All the facts noted by the Probate Court weighed against the petitioner in dismissing his Probate Petition. Moreover, the learned ADJ recored its finding that a prima facie case is made out against petitioner Mahipal and Kimti Lai for committing offences of using forged documents in court proceedings, giving false statement and filing false affidavits punishable under Sections 177, 181, 191, 192,193, 196, 199,209 IPG and ordered the logding ofcomplaint by the court vide its order dated 5.11.2011.

¶9Having regard to the foregoing facts and circumstances, it can be seen that there are sufficient and cogent grounds to proceed against the petitioner and hence the FIR cannot be quashed.The petition is hereby dismissed having no merits. No costs. M.L. MEHTA,J DECEMBER 12,2011

$-39 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P,(CRL)1675/2009 MAHIPAL SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar,Advocate versus STATE N.C.T.OFDELHI& ORS. Respondent Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC for State with Mr.Nikhil Menon,Advocates Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: ' HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MX. MEHTA