Ishwar Prakash vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 8 August, 2016

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first informant and respondent no. 3
has been identified to be the victim in the FIR in question by Inspt. B.
S. Gulia.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner came
to the office of the complainant/respondent no. 2 and offered him

Crl.M.C. 1738/2016 Page 1 of 7
property bearing no. WZ-674, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi,
hereinafter referred to as “Property in question”, assuring the
complainant/respondent no. 2 that he is the owner of the said property
and that there are tenants residing at the property and that they would
vacate the property once the sale deed is transferred in the name of the
complainant. On 29.06.2013, the respondent no. 2 purchased the
property in question for the consideration amount of Rs. 35,42,000/-
and reached the property in question for taking the possession. The
tenants residing therein requested for some time to shift but later, the
complainant came to know that the tenants were in fact the brothers
and mother of the petitioner/accused no. 1 in the FIR in question. The
complainant, upon confronting the accused person, he was given life
threats and was further threatened to be implicated in false cases by

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply