M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 1 of 10 the Police Station Connaught Place that upon visiting office he found that the office was unattended and without the lock.On the same date i.e. 24th July, 2000 respondent No.2/Mr.N.S. Hoon claiming himself to be the tenant of the said premises also filed a complaint with the Police that the petitioner No.2 along with one Dewan forcibly evicted the premises by threatening the workers and he picked up the briefcase of the respondent No.2 which was kept in the office, containing rent deed, other documents and money.N.S. Hoon also filed a subsequent complaint on 26th July, 2000 against Sanjay Ahuja and others.On 6th November, 2000 Mr.N.S. Hoon filed a writ petition, being W.P. (Crl.) 947/2000 in this Court seeking direction to register the FIR.The same was registered being FIR No.732/2000 under Sections 448/379/34 IPC.The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summoning order dated 12th May, 2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in case arising out of the FIR bearing No.RC 4S/2003/SCB-1 DLI and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.Brief facts of the case as per the petition are that the petitioner No.2 filed a complaint with the Police Station Connaught Place Smt.Meera Ahuja on 20th July, 2000 mainly on the reason that she was trying to grab office bearing No.1003, Akashdeep Building, 26 A Barakhamba Road, belonging to the firm of M/s. Ahuja Finance Corporation.Another complaint was filed by the petitioner No.2 with Crl.The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 28th May, 2003 transferring further investigation to CBI.On 13th June, 2003 the CBI registered the case under No.RC 4S/2003/SCB-1 DLI.On 11th January, 2005, after investigation the CBI filed a final report in the said case exonerating the petitioners under Sections 448/379/34 IPC due to lack of any evidence observing further as under:-M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 1 of 10(i) As per partnership deed, Smt Meera Ahuja was not a partner of M/s Ahuja Finance Corsporation and therefore could not dispose off or rent properties belonging to the firm.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 2 of 10(ii) The rent deed was executed by Smt. Meera Ahuja in the capacity of partner of M/s Unitex Corporation which was not the owner of the property in question.(iii) Moreover Smt. Meera Ahuja was not partner of the said M/s Unitex Corporation.(iv) Complaint dated 20th July, 2000 was filed by petitioner No.2 against Smt Meera Ahuja that in their absence, the latter was trying to grab properties belonging to the firm of M/s Ahuja Finance Corporation.Smt. Meera Ahuja had allegedly informed the Estate Manager, Akashdeep Building in writing that she was authorizing Mr Hoon (Respondent No.2) to use the property in question as his office.(v) No independent witness corroborates story of respondent No. 2 regarding presence of police personnel or theft of briefcase.(vi) No proof of threats or commotion thereby having no proof of criminal trespass.It is also a matter of fact that another complaint was filed against the petitioners, their son and brother Avtar Ahuja by Meera Ahuja under Sections 380/406/420/448/468/451 read with 120B IPC on 20th September, 2001 and the investigation was transferred to CBI by an order of this Court.Closure report was filed in the said complaint and the same was accepted by the Magistrate further observing that the CBI had rightly concluded that the allegations made by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners were of civil nature and there was no need to initiate any legal action under any provision of law.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 3 of 10By order dated 31st March, 2006, the trial Court had accepted the final report of CBI while observing that despite of sufficient notice given to respondent No.2, he did not appear nor filed any protest petition in rebuttal.On 15th April, 2006, respondent No.2 filed a revision petition being Crl.On 6th August, 2007, the Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter back to the Magistrate, while observing that the investigating agency was not competent to decide ownership or title of the premises in view of the allegations of dispossession and no one had denied the said fact that petitioner No.2 took over possession of the said flat.By order dated 28th October, 2013, the petitioners were directed to produce the original partnership deed.It was mentioned that if the said partnership deed is not produced then the petitioners have to explain to the Court as to why it is not produced.On 19th December, Crl.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 4 of 10 2013 counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not have the original partnership deed.It appears from the record that the petitioners also filed an application seeking amendment of the petition being Crl.Along with the application the amended petition was also filed.The application was allowed by order dated 19th December, 2013 and the amended petition was taken on record.The prayer made in the amended petition reads as under:M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 4 of 10Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi;(B) Quash the summoning order dated 12.05.2008 and the summons issued thereupon in RC 4S/2003/SCB-I DLI;(C) Set aside and quash order dtd.06.08.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Ld. Addl.Under these circumstances, without expressing anything on merit, the judgment dated 6th August, 2007 passed by the Additional Crl.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 9 of 10 Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, in Criminal Revision No.117/2006 is set aside.Consequently, the summoning order dated 12th May, 2008 is quashed with the direction that the criminal revision petition is restored to its original position.The petitioners are impleaded as respondents in the said criminal revision petition.The same shall be heard after service of notice to both the parties.The Revisional Court is requested to make its endeavour to decide the revision petition within a period of three to four months.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 9 of 10Trial court record be sent back forthwith.The present petition is accordingly disposed of.Pending application also stands disposed of.(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE APRIL 27, 2015 Crl.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 10 of 10M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 10 of 10

Cited provisions: Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code