SATYAMUNI VERMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Satyamuni Verma has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) against the impugned order dated 28.1.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In a nutshell, the facts as set out by the petitioner/complainant are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 406/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the respondents No. 2 to 7 herein. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner along with the complaint.

(2.) As per the case of the complainant, father of the complainant and respondent No. 3 Raj Dulari purchased two plots measuring bearing number WZ-430-B and WZ-430-I, Village Naraina, New Delhi by way of registered sale deed in the year 1958 and 1959 respectively. Respondent No. 3 herein being the sister of the petitioner was allowed to reside in the premises. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and injunction against the petitioner. The deceased father of the petitioner left behind a Will dated 7.12.1960 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages/mesne profits against respondent No. 3. The petitioner also filed a petition for probate of the Will. But petitioner has alleged that he came to know that respondent No. 3 executed a sale deed in favour of her husband namely Om Prakash Chauhan, respondent No. 2 herein in respect of property bearing number WZ-430/B/2 on 21.3.2002. The petitioner never executed any documents for transfer of the said property in favour of Smt. Raj Dulari. The respondent No. 2 Om Prakash Chauhan obtained loan for Rs. 3.00 crores from Vijaya Bank, Delhi Cantt. Branch, New Delhi by mortgaging the said property. According to the petitioner the police officials failed to register FIR on the complaint made by the complainant.

(3.) On the prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., learned Metropolitan Magistrate called for Action Taken Report (ATR). The police filed a status report stating that there are number of civil cases/litigation pending between the parties and, therefore, the complaint is of civil nature.