CRL.REV.P.--536/2015. Case: JAGDISH KAPILA Vs. RAJ KUMAR & ANR.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.REV.P.--536/2015 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | May 21, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.05.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 536/2015
JAGDISH KAPILA ..... Petitioner
versus
RAJ KUMAR & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Madaan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Subodh Kumar Pathak, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Shubhendu Sharma, PS Sarojini Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
-
Petitioner impugns charge framed against the petitioner
13.12.2013 whereby petitioner has been charged of an offence under Section 447 IPC.
-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial has erred in framing a charge and not appreciating that petitioner the allottee and in possession of the subject shop and there is document or material to show that respondent/complainant was in possession of the shop.
CRL.REV.P 536/2015 Page 1
-
Learned counsel further submits that the continuance proceedings would be a harassment of the petitioner who is admittedly the recorded lessee of the petitioner from NDMC and on a mere statement, the FIR has been registered. He further submits petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking a res on the complainant from interfering in the peaceful possession of petitioner and from dispossessing him from the property and said has been decreed by judgment dated 05.05.2015.
-
Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits respondent had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for taking the shop on and possession of the same was delivered to the respondent by petitioner on 18.01.2011 and complainant was in the process renovating the same when petitioner trespassed into the shop
27.02.2011.
-
The shop in issue is in Palika Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New which is a NDMC market. Petitioner is admittedly the allottee of said shop from NDMC. Respondent had filed a complaint under Section 200 contending that petitioner had agreed to rent out the to the respondent and had demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be in advance. It is alleged that Rs.50,000/- was paid as advance keys were delivered on 18.01.2011. It is alleged that petitioner assured that he would give a receipt for the same and would remove his articles from the said shop.
CRL.REV.P 536/2015 Page 2
-
The complaint alleges that petitioner did not remove his articles lying in the shop with malafide intention and after lapse of around 20 25 days, the complainant started...
To continue reading
Request your trial