Manohar Lal v. State N.C.T. Of Delhi

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1695/2024 & CRL. M.A. 16488/2024, 16489/2024 MANOHAR LAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate.

versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl.) with Ms. Anvita Bhandari, Mr. Kunal Mittal, Ms. Charu Sharma, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocates for State alongwith SI Sunil Nath PS Rani Bagh.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 27.05.2024 1.

By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent to take appropriate action in respect of the complaint dated 06.04.2024 filed by him.

2.

A perusal of the petition would show that the petitioner claimed himself to be owner of Maruti Suzuki Ertiga car having Registration No. DL2CAZ6814. It is further claimed that in January 2024, the accused Radhey Shyam, son of Late Shri Krishan Lal, expressed his intention to purchase the said car and offered to pay a sum of Rs.8 lacs as sale consideration. The sale consideration, however, was promised to be paid later. Simultaneously, a lease-cum-purchase agreement dated 10.02.2024 came to be executed between the complainant and Radhey Shyam. The The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/06/2024 at 11:51:08

petitioner claims that the lease rental was fixed at Rs.32,000/- per month. It is further claimed that the complainant had received a sum of Rs.77,000/- till the date of filing of the complaint, however, the balance amount of consideration remained unpaid. Consequently, Radhey Shyam issued a cheque bearing No.000002 dated 22.02.2024 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards part-payment of sale consideration. The said cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured. It is further claimed that the complainant has come to know that some traffic challans have also been issued w.r.t the said car for the violation committed by the Radhey Shyam. Essentially, in these facts the petitioner seeks directions for registration of a case against Radhey Shyam as well as seek remedy for the traffic challans.

3.

It is no longer res integra that in terms of the Supreme Court decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State Of U.P. & Ors. reported as (2008) 2 SCC 409, filing of the writ petition is not the remedy to be pursued for registration of a criminal case/FIR. The petitioner may approach the concerned Court with appropriate petition in accordance with law, if so advised. Insofar as issuance of traffic challans is concerned, the petitioner would contest the same before the appropriate court.

4.

In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of along with pending applications in above terms.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 27, 2024/rd The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/06/2024 at 11:51:08