Crl. M.C.1640 of 2009 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 24st January, 2011 Date of Order: 7th February, 2011 +CRL. M.C. 1640 of 2009 with Crl. M.A. 5915/2009 % 07.02.2011 SANJEEV KHANNA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Advocate with Ms Krishna M. Singh, Advocate. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) . ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP with SI Jaivir Singh, P.S. K.M. Pur Ms Dimple Vaid, Sister of accused. Mr. Akshay Chandra, Advocate for DDA JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. By present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed an order passed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner was booked under Section 420/468/471 IPC vide FIR No. 524 of 2003 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubark Pur. The learned MM, before whom charge-sheet was filed, after considering the arguments of the prosecution and the petitioner observed that no charge was made out against the accused under Section 468/471 IPC. However, a charge under Section 420 of IPC was made out. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision before learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge vide a detailed order dismissed the revision petition discussing provisions of law as Crl. M.C.1640 of 2009 Page 2 of 2 well as precedents on the issue. This petition has been filed assailing the order of learned Sessions Judge. 2. It is the settled law that Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be used as a Second Revision Petition and the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. sparingly and in rare cases where it feels that unless power is used justice shall stand defeated. It is not the case in hand. The accused in this case had obtained mutation of the property in his name, left behind by his father, by filing false affidavit, declaration etc. before DDA that he was the sole legal heir while other legal heirs of his father were very much there and his father had died intestate. By this mutation DDA acknowledged him as the sole proprietor of the property, however, put a rider that if the declaration was found false, the mutation shall be cancelled. Later on other legal heirs discovered about this forgery made by the petitioner and made application to DDA and the mutation was reversed. 3. I consider it is not a case where no cheating has taken place. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since mutation was reversed and mutation was not a proof of ownership, no case under Section 420 IPC was made out. I think recovery of the cheated property back does not take away the charge of cheating. Mutation may not be a proof of title in certain circumstances, but, mutation of leasehold property registered with DDA in his own name would have given a right to the petitioner to claim the entire property under his sole ownership. I therefore consider that this ground is not available to the petitioner. This petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. FEBRUARY 07, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. acm