RAJNI PALRIWALA Vs. D. MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition under Section 482 CrPC is to an order dated 24th June 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in CC No. 26981/1 of 2005 (renumbered as CC No. 1206/1 of 2005) titled Dr. D. Mohan v. Dr. Rajni Palriwala. It also seeks the quashing of the said criminal complaint and all proceedings consequent thereto.

(2.) THE Respondent No.1/Complainant Dr. D. Mohan on 23rd September 2005 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr PC against the petitioner in the court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate praying for the registration of an FIR for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It was stated in the said application that Smt. Kamala Mohan, the mother of the applicant (Respondent No.1 herein) was the owner of the property at G-4 Jungpura Extension, New Delhi-14 ('the property'). She had sold the first floor of the property to the petitioner for Rs. 18 lakhs through a sale deed executed on 28th May 2003. According to Respondent No.1 while the vendor Smt. Kamala Mohan conveyed along with the proportionate freehold rights inland and the superstructure standing thereon all the right, title and interest in the first floor of the property including the front staircase, the right to use the back staircase was not the subject matter of the sale. It was alleged that in line 8 of page 8 of the draft sale deed finalised prior to the registration, the words "and remains with the vendor" followed the words "with the right to use the Back Staircase, which is not the subject matter of this sale and is marked in blue in the plan annexed." However, it appeared that the said words "and remains with the vendor" had been deleted from the original sale deed as registered and that this had been done by the petitioner, in connivance with two other persons with some ulterior motive for wrongful gain. According to the complainant after the registration process was complete, the agent of the petitioner informed them that while fluid had been applied to line 8 of page 8 on account of some typographical error. The petitioner had deposited the original sale deed with the State Bank of India (SBI), University Branch with whom she had mortgaged the said property and obtained a loan. The applicant had serious apprehension that the sale deed may have been tampered and wrote to the SBI asking if in fact white fluid had been applied to the original sale deed. The SBI refused to divulge this information as it was against their confidentiality norms. Later when the petitioner approached Smt. Kamala Mohan for executing a sale deed in respect of the barsati portion in the property, the applicant insisted that the attested photocopy of the sale deed executed in respect of the first floor and deposited with the SBI be provided to them. When the photocopy of the said sale deed was provided by the petitioner, the applicant noticed that the aforementioned words "and remains with the vendor" were missing after line 8 in page 8 and only the initials of the petitioner were appended thereto. Noticing this discrepancy a complaint was filed by the applicant with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police on 7th October 2003. According to the applicant the EOW wing refused to register a FIR on the ground that it was for the SBI to lodge a complaint which the latter was unwilling to do. It was then mentioned in the application that the applicant had filed W.P. (Crl.) No. 1542-43 of 2005 in this Court which came to be dismissed on 8th September 2005. Later on 16th September 2005 it was clarified in Crl. M. No. 9322 of 2005 that it would be open for the applicant to avail of other remedies available to him in law. Consequently on 23rd September 2005 the application under Section 156 (3) Cr PC was filed by the applicant.

(3.) AT 4 p.m. on the same date, the following order was passed: