A Property Predicament: When Civil Disputes Don't Warrant Criminal Investigations.


21 April 2025 Investigation >> Criminal Law  

A recent petition of Rajat Pandhi v/s The State & Others., highlights the fine line between civil disputes and criminal matters, particularly in complex property cases. The Delhi High Court considered a challenge to the dismissal of an application for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), emphasizing that not every allegation of wrongdoing necessitates an FIR.

The case revolves around Flat No. 365, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, initially allotted to Ms. Sumitra Kawlra in 1989. Ms. Kawlra, who passed away in 2009, had executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and a Will in 1996, bequeathing the flat to her brother, Mr. Mohinder Nath Kawlra. He, in turn, appointed his brother, late Air Vice Marshal S.N. Kawlra, as his attorney to secure possession and execution of the conveyance deed. Records show that Mr. S.N. Kawlra completed formalities and deposited stamp duty in 1997.


 

 

However, the plot thickened when Mr. Mohinder Nath Kawlra, upon returning to India, discovered that unknown persons were occupying the flat. Further investigation revealed that DDA records pertaining to the flat from 1994 onwards were missing, and a new set of documents from 2006 suggested a transfer of title in favor of another brother, Mr. Virender Kawlra, purportedly through forged signatures of Ms. Sumitra Kawlra. It was alleged that Mr. Virender Kawlra subsequently sold the flat to Mr. Rakesh Verma and Ms. Sunita Verma, who are currently in possession.

Mr. Mohinder Nath Kawlra lodged a complaint with the police and DDA, alleging a conspiracy to misappropriate the flat. DDA, after an inquiry, cancelled the conveyance and mutation in Mr. Virender Kawlra's name in 2014, citing concealment of material facts and his failure to appear for a public hearing. Despite these developments, the police did not register an FIR.

Consequently, Mr. Mohinder Nath Kawlra's son, Mr. Rajat Pandhi, filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC for a police investigation. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, however, dismissed the application, noting that the documents executed in favor of Mr. Virender Kawlra were registered, carrying a presumption of genuineness. The court found no prima facie evidence of connivance between Mr. Virender Kawlra and DDA officials. 


While acknowledging missing DDA files, the Magistrate concluded this didn't automatically imply forgery. The lack of pre-2000 specimen signatures of Ms. Sumitra Kawlra also made it difficult to definitively conclude forgery based on differing signatures. The cancellation of the conveyance by DDA was based on Mr. Virender Kawlra's non-appearance, not necessarily on the forgery of documents. It was also noted that Mr. Virender Kawlra had challenged the cancellation in a Writ Petition.

The Metropolitan Magistrate concluded there was no prima facie case for directing an FIR and instead listed the matter for recording of evidence under Section 200 CrPC. This decision was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, leading to the current petition.

The DDA, in its reply, admitted that Ms. Sumitra Kawlra initially failed to comply with payment requirements but later completed formalities. They confirmed that possession was taken by Ms. Sumitra Kawlra in 2008 and, at her request, the flat was transferred to Mr. Virender Kawlra, with a conveyance deed executed in his favor in April 2008. DDA acknowledged Mr. Mohinder Nath Kawlra's subsequent complaint and their own cancellation of the mutation and conveyance deed due to Mr. Virender Kawlra's non-appearance.

The court, after hearing submissions, observed that the core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of two Wills executed by Ms. Sumitra Kawlra – one in 1996 in favor of Mr. Mohinder Nath Kawlra and another in 2007 in favor of Mr. Virender Kawlra. While the authenticity of the later Will was questioned due to differing signatures, the court found no conclusive evidence of forgery, especially since the 2007 Will was registered and included computerized pictures of Ms. Sumitra Kawlra.

The High Court affirmed that the case primarily involves a civil dispute requiring the interpretation of documents to ascertain the rightful owner, rather than a matter warranting police investigation. Regarding the missing DDA documents, the court stated that police investigation would serve no purpose in tracing documents admittedly unavailable. Instead, summoning DDA officials would be the appropriate course of action.

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that not every allegation, particularly in complex property disputes involving document interpretation and conflicting claims, automatically triggers the need for a criminal investigation. Such cases are best resolved through civil litigation, where parties can present evidence and establish their rights.


Section 156., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 200., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973