Rajpal Bansal & Anr vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 19 May, 2016

0
9

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been

Crl.M.C. 1712/2016 Page 1 of 7
identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question
by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question
was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that the complainant
in the course of the business had borrowed loan from Suresh Chand
Chawla in 2000 of Rs. 4 lacs and also executed papers of ownership at
his instance as security against the loan. The rent of Rs. 4,200/- was
given regularly to the accused- Suresh Chand Chawla by the
complainant. Thereafter, the health of the husband of the complainant
deteriorated and after putting lock on the house, the complainant
shifted to Bhopal. The key of the house was handed over to Harish
Kumar. The mother-in-law of the complainant informed her that the
accused persons had trespassed into her house and were removing
goods. The complainant along with her husband came back to Delhi
and on 06.06.2004, the husband and the mother-in-law of the
complainant were present in the house and they were threatened by the
accused persons.

Source: Indian Kanoon