KIRAN TANEJA Vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide present petition under Sec. 482 code of criminal code of criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Code") for quashing of proceeding and setting aside the orders dtd. 27/1/2018, 19/10/2019 and 8/11/2019 passed by the court of Shri Sanjay Khangwal, ASJ, Special Judge, ACB Delhi in CC bearing no. 55/17 (332/2019) and application bearing no. 2069/2020 filed by the applicant Vijay Gautam for impleadment.

(2.) The factual background necessary to mention is that Satya Devi Gautam was the recorded owner of the property bearing no. D-79, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the property"). Satya Devi Gautam expired on 25/1/2011 and thereafter Ravi Dutt Gautam became the recorded owner of the property who expired on 28/4/2011 without leaving any legal heirs. Thereafter, Renu Joshi r/o D-15, Indra Enclave, Sainik Farm, New Delhi claimed that the property has been bequeathed to her by virtue of Will stated to be executed in her favour by Ravi Dutt Gautam wherein she was mentioned as sole beneficiary.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dtd. 27/1/2018, 19/10/2019 and 8/11/2019 filed the present writ petition and challenged these orders on the grounds that the impugned orders are contrary to law and facts on records. The trial court should not decline to accept the First Closure Report without any justifiable or cogent legal reasons. The law only requires issuance of notice to the first informant on filing of the Closure Report and in the present case, the first informant i.e. Parmil Mittal had already recorded his no objection by way affidavit 16/12/2017. There was no occasion for the Special Judge, CBI to issue notice to any other person as aggrieved. There is no provision in the Code for impleading of any other person as per sec. 173 (2) (ii) of the Code. The Final Report was required to be communicated only to the first informant not to the alleged aggrieved person. The Trial Court has passed the impugned orders in mechanical manner and without application of mind and as such the impugned orders are manifestly erroneous and contrary to the law. The impleading of alleged aggrieved party in Closure Report is beyond the powers of the Trial Court. Vijay Gautam is already litigating before the Civil Court since 2011 prior to the registration of the present case. It is prayed that the impugned orders dtd. 27/1/2018, 19/10/2019 and 8/11/2019 be quashed along with consequential proceedings.