SUDHA GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sudha Gupta and Vijay Pal Gupta, the petitioners herein have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. pending before respondent No. 3 i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Preet Vihar in a complaint bearing No. SDM (PV)/145 Cr.P.C./2009/377 dated 06th July, 2009. The petitioners are also praying for directions to respondent No. 2 to register an FIR against respondents No. 4 & 5 and also to hold a departmental enquiry against them for the gross misconduct committed by them in dispossessing the petitioners from their house without verification of the facts as also directions to the respondents No. 2, 4, 5 & 6 to pay suitable compensation/damages to the petitioners for their illegal dispossession from the property owned by them.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No. 6 L.N.Soni filed a complaint under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Code') dated 13th March, 2009 before the SDM, Preet Vihar claiming that he was the owner of the disputed property forming part of Khasra No. A-882 and 824, Village Mandawali, Fazalpur, now known as Vinod Nagar. Respondent No. 6 claimed in the complaint that the said property was earlier owned by one Prem Chand, who sold it to one Shyam Sunder vide General Power of Attorney dated 17th May, 1976 and thereafter, the property changed several hands and ultimately, it was purchased by one Dhoom Singh through Power of Attorney. Said Dhoom Singh, on 24th November, 1996 lodged a police complaint against Sudha Gupta and Vijay Pal Gupta (petitioners) alleging that they had trespassed upon the property. No action however was taken on said complaint despite of the representations made to the DCP (East), Delhi. Thereafter, a complaint was also addressed to the ACP (Public Grievance Cell), East District, Delhi, who recommended that the property be sealed and action in terms of Section 145 of the 'Code' be taken. Despite that, no action was taken by the local police. L.N.Soni further alleged in his complaint dated 13th March, 2009 that Sudha Gupta and Vijay Pal Gupta (petitioners) were indulging in illegal construction at the site in dispute without permission and that they had threatened him with dire consequences if he was seen anywhere near the said property.

(3.) As per the record of the SDM, notice of the complaint was issued to the petitioners and on 18th April, 2009, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate appeared in the court of SDM on behalf of the petitioners. The SDM, however was busy in some election meeting, as such, the matter was adjourned to 16th May, 2009. The petitioners however failed to appear in the court of SDM on the date of hearing, i.e., 16th May, 2009. Matter was adjourned to 01st July, 2009. Even on that date of hearing, petitioners did not appear. Respondent No. 6 filed an application along with the documents pertaining to his ownership of the property and the SDM called for urgent report from the SHO Mandawali, within two days. The matter was again taken up on 03rd July, 2009 but no report was received from SHO Mandawali. Thus, the SDM adjourned the matter to 06th July, 2009. On 06th July, 2009 also, the petitioners herein did not appear before the SDM and the SDM passed the following order:-