SURINDER KUMAR GOLYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is against the order dated 28th April, 2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby his application under Section 190 read with Section 204 Cr.P.C for summoning the respondent No.2 Shashi Kant as an accused was dismissed.

(2.) The allegations in the FIR filed by the petitioner were that the late grandfather and father of the petitioner and respondent No.3 Inder Chand Golyan, during their lifetime purchased various HUF properties at different places, one of such property being an industrial plot at 44, Rama Road, Najafgarh Road admeasuring 1202 Sq. yards vide registered Sale Deed dated 4th March, 1949 in the name of Lakhi Ram Leela Dhar. On 12th May, 1968 a partition took place amongst the brothers of late Lakhi Ram and the property came to the share of their father Leela Dhar as a Hindu Undivided Family property. The eldest son of Leela Dhar, that is, late Shri Babu Ram took his share on 8th August, 1980 and separated from the joint family. Thus at the time of death of Leela Dhar, Sarita Devi, Inder Chand, Sita Devi, Devki Nandan, Sushila Devi, Uma Devi, Surender Kumar, Prem Kumar, Anjana Devi and Shiv Kumar inherited the rest of the property. The responsibility of maintaining the undivided property was vested with Inder Chand Golyan and all original documents of the property were with the complainant at Shri Ganganagar. Around 1 -1 1/2 months back, the complainant Surender Kumar and the other shareholders sought partition and sale of the aforesaid property. However, Inder Chand Golyan adopted dilatory tactics. Thereafter the complainant and other shareholders came to know that the aforesaid property was in possession of some accused having been sold to them illegally. Thus it was alleged that in criminal conspiracy Inder Chand Golyan sold away 121 Sq. yards portion of the property to Smt. Rajkumari, 121 sq. yards to Kishan Chand, 165 sq. yards portion of the property to Navneet, 165 sq. yards to Shashi Kant and on the same date Rajkumari and Kishan Chand sold the property further to Smt. Anita Goyal and Smt. Monica Gupta, who sold it to Smt. Meenakshi Gupta. It was alleged that the sales had been effected on the basis of forged documents, thus action be taken against the accused.

(3.) After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Inder Chand Golyan. Shashi Kant, respondent No.2 was kept in column No.12. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 190 read with Section 204 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of Shashi Kant stating that there was a deep rooted conspiracy between the two and the entire property was usurped on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It was argued that Shashi Kant has been involved in the transaction since inception and in certain sale deeds it was noted that the property had been inherited from Leela Dhar and Lakhi Ram without even mentioning their alleged Wills and in other it was simply written that he was the owner. It is alleged that Shashi Kant purchased the property without seeing original documents of the property or without mutation with the MCD. Vide the order dated 28th April, 2015 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held as under: