HARISH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 822/2004 under Section 406/420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC P.S. Parshant Vihar. In the FIR, the complainant alleged that Sita Ram Gautam and Vijay Kamra sometime in the year 1988 took him into confidence that they were President and Secretary of Jyoti Cooperative Group Housing Society and one original membership was lying vacant. He believed their representation and took membership in the name of his wife Smt. Alka Gupta. He completed the documents and other formalities as asked by these two persons. An original share certificate was issued in the name of his wife. Society also issued original demand letter. His wife borrowed loan twice from LIC Housing Finance Limited and paid the cost of the flat partly from the loan and partly from savings. Rs.6 lac was paid to above two office bearers. All formalities and Tripartite Agreement etc. were also completed. Allotment of flat was to be done on 9th September, 2000 however, instead it was got done on 8th September, 2000 a day before, by publishing a notice in the newspapers. On 9th September, 2000 when he (complainant) along with his wife reached there and found that the name of Mrs. Alka Gupta was not there in the list of members to whom flats were alloted; his wife was denied the delivery of flat. He later learnt that delivery was denied on the ground that the original membership was of one Santosh Kumari and complainant wife was a transferee member only and transfer was not recognised by Registrar. It was submitted in the complaint that Santosh Kumari was not even known to complainant and he later learnt that Santosh Kumari was real sister in law of Sita Ram Gautam. She lived in the neighbourhood of Sita Ram Gautam. She was also working in a company of Sita Ram Gautam. Sita Ram Gautam and Vijay Kamra got a letter dated 20.11.1992 written from Santosh Kumari wherein she stated that Alka Gupta was her real sister therefore, her membership may be transferred in the name of her sister Alka. It is stated that no such letter was obtained by complainant or Alka Gupta and the accused persons along with Santosh Kumari were involved in a conspiracy to deprive them their hard earned savings and they also had an evil eye on the flat.

(2.) Quashing of FIR is sought on the grounds that (i) IO registered the FIR without investigating the matter because the petitioners had lodged complaints against the IO, (ii) respondent no. 2 (complainant) concealed the facts regarding adjudication of his wife's claim by Registrar Cooperative Society and (iii) a criminal complaint could not be filed once the claim of respondent no. 2 was rejected by Registrar Cooperative Societies and Criminal Court can not adjudicate the matter.

(3.) The petitioner has placed on record the order of the High Court in writ petition filed by the wife of respondent no. 2 as well as order of the Registrar Cooperative Society. A perusal of order dated 20th December, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court would show that this Court observed that while the petitioner claimed original membership of the society, the society denied that the petitioner was original member and the validity of share certificate was disputed. Since the Court could not embark upon a roving enquiry into the facts and veracity of rival claims, the petitioner was directed to seek redressal from the Registrar Cooperative Societies.