Asha Menon JUDGMENT
Asha Menon, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") for quashing the Notice dated 8th September, 2021, issued by the SDM, Hauz Khas, South District, New Delhi in case titled Raj Narayan Singh v. Jitendra Kumar Sardana & Anr., and for setting aside of the proceedings emanating from the said Notice.
2. The petitioner states that he is engaged in the business of real estate. The facts as pleaded by the petitioner are that property bearing No. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, measuring 499 square yards was leased by the Delhi Development Authority (for short, "DDA") to late Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana, vide Lease Deed dated 08th December, 1967, who died on 5th April, 2011, leaving behind his siblings, namely, Jitender Sardana (since deceased) respondent no. 3 herein, Sushma Diwan, Sushila Arora (since deceased) and Pushpa Mendiratta, as his legal heirs.
3. While the respondent no. 3 approached the DDA on 2nd August, 2011 for mutation of the property in favour of the surviving legal heirs of Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana, a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2 claiming to have purchased the property from Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana and being in possession of all original documents. The DDA vide letter dated 18th November, 2011 intimated the respondent No. 3 that no action could be taken because of the said complaint. The respondent no. 3 filed a police complaint alleging that the original documents had been stolen by a servant.
4. Further, in January, 2012, the respondent no. 3 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on behalf of himself and his siblings with the petitioner for sale of the property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 19 crores. A sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was also paid to these persons in cash. An Agreement to Sell was also executed on 11th April, 2012 by the respondent no. 3, on behalf of himself and Sushma Diwan and Sushila Arora for the 3/4th share in the property. In May, 2012, it was informed to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 that the sale could not be processed further as Ms. Sangeeta Bhambani, one of the daughters of his pre-deceased sister, had filed a suit for partition, being CS(OS) 350/2012, before this court and on 20th April, 2012, the respondent No. 3 had been restrained from disposing of, selling, mortgaging, or parting with possession or in any way transferring the said property.
5. Since that suit was dismissed on 27th March, 2014, the respondent No. 3 once again informed the petitioner that he would be moving forward to put into effect the Agreement to Sell. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 had filed an I.A. No. 538/2014 for impleadment in the said suit as the rightful owner of the property, which came as a complete surprise to the petitioner. Therefore, he filed a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent No. 3 being CS(OS) 1081/2014 in this court.
6. The respondent No. 2 had also made a complaint on 17th September, 2014, upon which a Kalandara was prepared under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the property in question was sealed. On 19th September, 2014, the SDM passed an order of status quo, after which the respondent No. 2 approached this court by filing a petition, being Crl.M.C. No. 203/2016, for quashing of these proceedings. In the said petition, this court directed the SDM to dispose of the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of the order i.e., 18th January, 2016. The SDM disposed of the Kalandara on 19th September, 2016, closing the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by making the following observations:-
"xxx xxx
Further as ........