MANMOHAN KUKREJA Vs. STATE DELHI ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 48/92 under Section 420/460/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi or in the alternative to stay the criminal proceedings arising out of said FIR till the disposal of the suit No. 1840/ 90 pending in the High Court of Delhi and to quash the order dated 20/04/1998 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the aforesaid proceedings declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender and initiating proceedings against him under Section 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition, briefly stated are, that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Damyanti Narang, since deceased, under which she had agreed to sell house No. C-53, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. In pursuance of the agreement a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the deceased seller and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed This transaction was recorded on agreement dated 28/06/1984 and the possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner According to the seller Damyanti Narang, he daughter, Manju Narang visited the office of the Land & Development, Government of India in the month of May, 1990 and came to know that on the basis of a sale deed, the aforesaid property already stood transferred in favour of the petitioner. When she obtained a copy of the sale deed from the office of the Registrar, it was found that the said sale deed was not bearing the signatures of the seller Damyanti Narang. she also came to know that one Mr. P.P. Rajpal a close relative of the petitioner as his attorney had submitted an application in the office of the L&DO in the year 1987 for the mutation of the property in favour of the petitioner and had submitted copy of the sale deed dated 2.4.1987 which had never been executed by her in favour of the petitioner. The balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- which was shown to have been paid to the seller through a bank draft was never given to her and she had never appeared before the Sub Registrar to sign any sale deed. On these allegations, the plaintiff first filed a suit for declaration and possession against the defendant in the High Court of Delhi with a prayer that the alleged sale deed dated 2.4.1987 in respect of the property in question may be declared null and void being bogus and forged. During the pendency of the suit Damyanti Narang filed an FIR also dated 27.1.1992 containing the allegations in regard to the cheating and forging of sale deed against the present petitioner. The petitioner could not be arrested and as such the police filed a challan showing him in Col. No. 2, Thereafter the learned Metropolitan Magistrate initiated steps for declaring him a proclaimed offender and by orders dated 20.4.1998 ordered process under Section 82 and 83 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against him.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.