PRAKASH DEVI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.1.2008 passed by the court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 4/2008.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petitioner are that father of Mr. Krishan Kumar, herein respondent No. 2, and Mr. Ved Prakash, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, are real brothers. Sh. Ram Chander, grand father of both the parties i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and respondent No. 2 purchased the property in dispute, measuring 280 sq yards 1259, Subhash Road, Vishal Market, Gandhi Nagar. After the death of Sh. Ram Chander, the property devolved upon their grand-mother Smt. Angoori Devi who executed a registered will in 1980 in favour of her two sons, namely, Sh. Jagdish Prasad and Sh. Ved Prakash in respect of the disputed property. The said property was bequeathed by both of them on their legal heirs i.e. petitioners 2 to 5 and respondent No. 2 respectively. Respondent no 2 alleged that Mr. Ved Prakash had left a will in favour of Jagdish Prasad for shop no 19 and the petitioners had taken illegal forcible possession of the said shop. On the basis of this allegation, both the respondent and his mother, Smt Raj Rani, filed suit No 983/2006 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act r/w Section 151 of CPC for restoration of possession of the shop along with another suit no 875/2006. Respondent no 2 filed a criminal complaint case in court of Chief MM Delhi on 28.06.2006. The Ld MM on the basis of material on record directed enquiry by the police and on the basis of the status report filed by the police, the court dismissed the complaint case no 67/06 under Section 380/454/506/120A IPC by order dated 8.10.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no 2 filed a criminal revision petition no 4/2008 Under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The learned revisional court vide order dated 22.1.2008 set aside the impugned order dated 8.10.2007 and granted respondent no 2 an opportunity to lead pre summoning evidence. As per the direction of the revisional court the ld MM examined the complaint and vide order dated 25.2.2009 found prima facie ample material on record to summon the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved with the revisional order dated 22.1.2008 and by all the subsequent proceedings, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner stated that the complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed by the concerned Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel thus submitted that dismissal of the complaint of the respondent was after the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint case filed by the respondent. The petitioner was entitled to be heard by the revisional court as would be borne out from Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure as the petitioner in any case falls under the category of other person if not at the stage under the category of an accused. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments: