KARAN MADAAN Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Karan Madan is seeking cancellation of anticipatory protection which has been granted to Nageshwar Pandey, his son Alok Pandey and his other relation Sanjay Kumar Pandey in terms of the order of the Sessions Judge dated 03.01.2013 in FIR No. 156/2012 registered under Sections 406/415/420/120-B/323/354/390/392/394/452/506/511/34 of the Penal Code at PS Inderpuri. Needless to state this application has been opposed. Pleadings are complete. Reply and rejoinder have been filed.

(2.) Record shows that property No. EC-5, village Naraina, New Delhi is the subject matter of dispute inter-se between the parties. The complainant had allegedly purchased this property from respondent No. 2 Nageshwar Pandey vide sale deed dated 01.11.2011. Physical possession of the property, however, continued to remain with respondent No. 2. Inspite of repeated requests, physical possession of the property had not been handed over to the complainant. A suit for specific performance had been filed by the complaint in which a counter claim had been filed by respondent No. 2. This Court has been informed that the suit stands decreed in favour of the complainant on his application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil P.C. seeking rejection of the counter claim has also been answered in his favour. Appeal is pending against that decree which has been passed in favour of the complainant.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel For The Petitioner Points Out That The Trial Judge While Granting Anticipatory Protection To The Petitioner Has Considered Only Two Circumstances; The Fact That There Is A Civil Litigation Inter-Se Between The Parties As Also Additional Fact That A Diamond Ring And Other Jewellery Of The Wife Of The Complainant Has Not Been So Mentioned In The Earlier Complaint And It Was An Afterthought. Submission Of The Learned Senior Counsel For The Petitioner Being That The Allegations Contained In Dd No. 30-A And 31-A Which Had Been Registered On The Same Day I.E. On 29.04.2012 (Date Of The Incident) Clearly Shows That Respondent No. 2 And His Family Members In Their Infuriated State Of Mind Had Threatened The Complainant Stating That He Had High Contacts In The Society And He Could Also Bring The Investigating Officer To Book And The Entire Police Staff Was A Witness To This. The Essential Part Of The Incident Has In Fact Not Been Taken Note By The Sessions Judge. Further Submission Being That The Track Record Of Respondent No. 2 And His Family Is Not Good; There Is A Charge-Sheet Which Has Been Filed Against Him Under Sec. 182 Of The Cr.Pc. Another Fir Under Sections 406/409/420 Of The Ipc Is Also Pending Against Him. In This Background, Anticipatory Protection Should Not Have Been Granted In Favour Of Respondent No. 2. To Support Her Submission, Reliance Has Been Placed Upon AIR 2011 SC 312 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State Of Maharashtra And Others.