KULSHRESTHA DHINGRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing No. 06/2010, P.S. Vasant Kunj under Section 327/380/242/392/397/506/34 IPC.

(2.) THE petitioner no. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife. THE complainant is the sister of petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 1 and the complainant had inherited one commercial property in Malviya Nagar from their deceased father. THE complainant is a widow. Her deceased husband owned one residential flat in Sheikh Sarai which is in occupation of the two petitioners herein. THE petitioner no. 1 and the complainant, i.e. the brother and the sister, decided to sell the property in Malviya Nagar and accordingly, they sold the same for Rs. 70 lacs. THE complainant alleged in her complaint to the police that on 4 th January, 2010 when the sale deal was struck, the purchasers brought the cash payment of Rs. 50 lacs to her house in two bags containing Rs. 25 lacs each. THE two petitioners were also present at that time. Balance payment of sale consideration was allegedly made by the purchasers by way of cheques. It was further alleged that after the payment of sale consideration by the purchasers, the complainant, the petitioners and the purchasers went to NOIDA for the registration of sale deed. After getting the sale deed registered, the complainant came back to her house along with the petitioners. At that time, the petitioners beat her up and went away after taking away the entire cash payment of Rs. 50 lacs which had been kept by her in her house before leaving for NOIDA and while leaving her house the petitioners also took away another sum of Rs. 5 lacs which was also lying in the house besides some jewellery items. THE FIR was registered by the police on 08.01.2010 and subsequently the chargesheet was filed on 14.02.2011. THE petitioners filed a discharge application which was dismissed by the Ld. MM and Section 397 IPC was also added in the FIR. THEreafter, the case was transferred to the Court of the Ld. ASJ as after addition of Section 397 IPC the offence was triable exclusively by a Sessions Court. THE Ld. ASJ after hearing the arguments on charges, was pleased to frame charges against the petitioners vide order dated 24.11.2011. Hence the present petition.

(3.) PER contra, the learned APP submitted that there was no discrepancy in the DD entry of the complaint that was made by the complainant to the police and that discrepancy, if any was there, could not be attributed to the complainant. In this regard it is submitted that on receipt of information from PCR, the DD entry was recorded at the police station noting the incident of snatching of Rs. 5.00 lacs. However, from the PCR later it came to be informed that the complainant had reported about her brother and his wife having beaten her and taken away Rs. 50- 55 lacs. It is submitted that there was no delay in reporting the incident to the police and the delay, if any, in registration of the FIR, was due to investigation and for no fault of the complainant. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that what was stated by the complainant to the police was Rs.55.00 lacs, but it was mistakenly recorded by police as Rs.5.00 lacs in the DD as per the telephonic information of PCR. It is submitted that the offence was committed by the petitioner in a very planned and designed manner.