OM PRAKASH AGGARWAL Vs. MR. BHARAT VIDHU PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) Crl.M.A. No. 12962 of 2006 (Exemption) Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions. Crl. Appeal No. 994/2006 & Crl. M.A. No. 12963/2006.

(2.) The appellant has filed this appeal aggrieved by an order dated 12.07.2006 passed by the court below dismissing his complaint against the respondent under Sec. 340 Cr. P.C.

(3.) The father of the appellant allegedly purchased the suit property bearing No. K-2068, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi from R.N. Ghosh on the basis of agreement to sell dated 10.08.1969. The agreement to sell was an unregistered document. Except agreement to sell, there was no other document with the appellant to prove the title over the suit property in favour of his father. The previous owner R.N. Ghosh filed a suit for possession of the suit property before Civil Judge, Delhi against appellant's father being suit No.388/1979. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.09.1988 passed by Shri P.D. Jarwal, then Sub - Judge, Delhi. An appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by Shri I.S. Mehta, ADJ, Delhi vide judgment dated 14.07.1997. Thereafter the appellant's father died on 03.02.1998. It is alleged that the respondent criminally trespassed into the suit property on 29.10.2001 after gun shotting the appellant's chowkidar, for which a complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent before the concerned court. The said complaint is stated to be pending as on date. The appellant is also stated to has filed a civil suit for damages against the respondent in which he has claimed damages in respect of the suit property from the respondent for the period commencing from 29.10.2001. The respondent is alleged to have filed a written statement in the said suit wherein he took a plea that he had purchased the suit property from R.N. Ghosh for valuable consideration on 04.09.2000 and had taken possession of the said property on the same day from R.N. Ghosh. It is further contended that the respondent has taken a contrary plea regarding the date of his taking possession of the suit property in other legal proceedings pending between the parties. The contention of the learned counsel is that the respondent is liable for action under Sec. 340 Crimial P.C. as he has filed false pleadings before the court of law. Admittedly, findings have not been returned by any court against the respondent that he has deliberately filed false pleadings to derive undue advantage for himself or cause wrongful loss to the other Party. I have gone through the impugned order of the court below but I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said order calling for an interference by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Hence the present appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.