IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. M.C. NO.______OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

AJAY KUMAR RAMAN & ORS. ...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

REPLY FOR PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C SEEKING TO

QUASH THE NOTICE U/S:107/111 CR.P.C. ARISING OUT OF DD NO.
62A/2021; PS: GREATER KAILASH-I AND FURTHER QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS/ INQUIRIES ARISING THERE FROM QUA THE
PRESENT PETITIONERS.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

At the outset each and every allegation, accusation, averment, contention,

and/or suggestion contained in the Reply Affidavit unless specifically admitted
in the succeeding paras shall be deemed to be false and emphatically denied as
if set out seriatim and denied.

Preliminary submissions

1. It is submitted that the property in question is the part of Ajay Kumar

Raman & Sons (HUF) which comprises of Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh.
Prabhat Kumar Raman and Sh. Puneet Raman being the coparcener of the
said HUF.
2. It is submitted at the outset, the Kalandra under Section 107 read with
Section 151 Cr. P.C. is false, frivolous, and demonstrates the abuse of
 power of the police officials and has been issued with the sole motive to
harass, bully, torment and agonize the Respondents. The allegations made
in the kalandra are concocted, vague, false, and lacking in material
particulars.
3. It is submitted that the answering Respondents have not indulged in any
quarrel with Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Prabhat Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal
Krishan Sharma which is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb
public tranquillity or amount to any wrongful act. In the instant case,
from the sequence of events stated hereinabove, present proceedings
against the answering Respondents need to be set aside.
4. It is submitted that no complaint has been received by the Executive
Magistrate against the answering Respondents regarding any breach of
the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that
may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public
tranquillity, the answering Respondents have without prejudice executed
the personal bond to show good faith and their bonafide in the present
matter.
5. It is also submitted that Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar
Raman and Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma have illegally deployed 16-17
unknown persons in the said property. It is further submitted that such 16-
17 persons were present on the instance of Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh.
Prabhat Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma with illegal designs
and to threaten and intimidate Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana, Caretaker of the
said property including his wife and minor child in order to illegally grab
the said property.

Preliminary objections
 1. The present suit is not maintainable as the contents of Complaint dated
23.10.2018, letter to DCP dated 28.06.2021, Complaint dated
05.07.2021, Complaint dated 18.10.2021, Complaint and PCR call
dated 23.10.2021 are not false and frivolous in nature as contented by
the petitioners in the petition herein.
2. All the submissions made in the petition are denied in entirety, unless
specifically admitted. That the present petition has been filed with the
sole intention of deviating the Hon’ble court from the current facts and
circumstances and the petitioner is trying to waste the time of court by
filing such extraneous petition.
3. The petition filed by the Petitioner is erroneous and vexatious and is filed
on the basis of manipulated facts having nonchalant approach

Para wise reply

1. The contents of para are matter of record and hence need no reply.
2. The contents of para are matter of record and need no reply.
3. The contents of para are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
petitioners are peace loving and law-abiding citizens of country.
4. The contents of para are wrong and denied. It is denied that the incident
described in the alleged complaint never happened and it is a cooked-up
story wherein as mentioned in the alleged complaint are accurate and true
in nature. Relevant extracts of the complaint are reproduced herein
below:

“1) …. that on 16th October 2021, two individuals by the name of Mr.
Prem and Mr. Bal Kishan Sharma along with some unknown persons
came to the above-mentioned property and threatened Mr. Pawan Kumar
Family, caretaker of the property and other security guard present at the
site.
5. The contents of para are wrong and denied. It is denied that the complaint
filed by respondent no .2 are false and totally concocted as on
25.10.2018, Sh. Puneet Raman was constrained to file a complaint dated
23.10.2018 under section 451 and 452 read with Section 120B/34 IPC
against Sh. Prabhat Raman, Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Pradeep Kumar,
Sh. Karnail Singh and other unknown persons for having committed the
offences under Section 451 and Section 452 read with Section 120B/34
IPC. The relevant extracts from the said complaint are reproduced herein
below
“e) After accused No. 3 and 4 trespassed into my N-234, which is in my
possession, they, along with other unknown persons unlawfully and
illegally demolished the property which was being constructed by me for
as a store room and threatened me and my workers with dire
consequences to my life and to the life of my workers if I continued the
construction at N-234. At this time, accused No. 3 and 4 and the other
unknown persons used criminal force against me and my employees in
furtherance to the threat to my life and to the life of my workers….
(f)That accused No. 1 & 2 are threatening that they will dispossess me
from N-232 and the guards of accused No. 1 & 2 are further threatening
the gardener that he will be beaten up by them if he enters the property.”

6. It is denied that the PCR call made on 23.10.201 was false, concocted as
on 23.10.2021, Sh. Puneet Raman got the information from Sh. Pawan
Kumar Rana, Caretaker of the said property that Sh. Prabhat Raman, Sh.
Ajay Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal Kishan with 16 -17 unknown persons are
trying to enter and take physical possession of the said property and cause
criminal disturbance. Upon the said information, PCR was called by Sh.
Puneet Raman and complaint was filed against Sh. Bal Kishan Sharma
and Sh. Arvind Tripathi. And that no complaint has been received by the
 Executive Magistrate against the answering Respondents regarding any
breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any
wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb
the public tranquillity, the answering Respondents have without prejudice
executed the personal bond to show good faith and their bonafide in the
present matter.

7. From a bare perusal of the contents of Complaint dated 23.10.2018, letter

to DCP dated 28.06.2021, Complaint dated 05.07.2021, Complaint dated
18.10.2021, Complaint and PCR call dated 23.10.2021 as well as stay
orders dated 20.12.2018 and 22.04.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, it is evident that the facts have been completely ignored
and distorted in the present matter. It is submitted that from the sequence
of events stated herein above, it becomes abundantly clear that the
answering Respondents have not indulged in any quarrel with Sh. Ajay
Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh. Arvind Tripathi, Sh.
Punee Chand and Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma but are in fact only defending
their lawful rights and property against the illegal conduct of the said
persons.

8. It is denied that the kalandra is full of absolute false and fabricated

documents as kalandra under Section 107/150 CrPC has been registered
against Sh. Puneet Raman S/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Pawan Kumar
Rana S/o Sh. Ajit Singh and Smt. Banita W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana
and the other party being Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman S/o Lt. Radha Raman,
Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman S/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal
Krishan Sharma S/o Sh. K.R. Sharma. At the outset, the Kalandra under
Section 107 read with Section 151 Cr. P.C. is false, frivolous, and
demonstrates the abuse of power of the police officials and has been
 issued with the sole motive to harass, bully, torment and agonize the
Respondents. The allegations made in the kalandra are concocted, vague,
false, and lacking in material particulars hence, liable to be outrightly
rejected

9. It is denied that the notice u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C is issued in accordance

with the law and that the petitioners have not paid the said bond and are
causing nuisance with malafied intention whereas the respondents in
accordance with the law and respecting the courts order in good faith
have paid the said bond.

10.It is denied that there is any collusion between respondents and

petitioners where as it the collusion of police and petitioners abuse of
power of the police officials and has been issued with the sole motive to
harass, bully, torment and agonize the Respondents.

11.It is denied that the petitioners were not fighting with respondent no 2,3
and 4 regarding dispute over property as that on 16.10.2021, when Sh.
Puneet Raman was out of Delhi, Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat
Kumar Raman, Sh. Bal Kishan Sharma and Sh. Prem being fully aware of
the absence of Puneet Raman tried to trespass the said property and
threaten Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana and other security guards for their life
which was in complete violation to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi. Sh. Puneet Raman was constrained to file another Complaint
addressing to SHO, GK-2, New Delhi dated 18.10.2021 through his
Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Alpana Poddar The said complaint was
filed against Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh. Bal
Kishan Sharma and Sh. Prem thereby requesting SHO to look into the
 issue.

12. The contents are matter of record and hence need no reply.

Reply for Grounds as mentioned in petition:

A. It is wrong and denied that because the proceedings u/s 107/150

Cr.P.C. qua the petitioners before Ld. SEM South District New
Delhi are totally illegal, improper and incorrect.

B. It is wrong and denied that the sole object of initiating proceedings

u/s 107 of the code is to maintain public peace and tranquillity and
it cannot be used as a handle in case of a private dispute between
individuals.

C. That the contents of para need no reply.

D. That the contents of para need no reply.

E. The contents of para need no reply.

F. It is wrong and denied that the dispute is of civil nature and is

without any criminal involvement as that on 16.10.2021, when Sh.
Puneet Raman was out of Delhi, Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh.
Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh. Bal Kishan Sharma and Sh. Prem being
fully aware of the absence of Puneet Raman tried to trespass the
said property and threaten Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana and other
 security guards for their life which was in complete violation to the
orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Sh. Puneet Raman was
constrained to file another Complaint addressing to SHO, GK-2,
New Delhi dated 18.10.2021 through his Power of Attorney Holder
Smt. Alpana Poddar making the dispute a criminal matter.

G. That the contents of matter are matter of record and hence need no
reply.

H. It is wrong and denied that the petitioner no 1. Is the absolute and

sole registered owner of property as follows:

a. The Respondent namely Sh. Puneet Raman is in possession

of property situated at N-232 and N-234, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi since year 2016. Sh. Puneet Raman was given
possession of 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 1 small kitchenette,
half of one garage and 1 servant quarter in N-232. The
servant quarter is being used by the employee of Sh. Puneet
Raman namely Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana who works as a
caretaker and his wife Smt. Banita along with a minor child
since 2016 as they have been residing there. It is further
submitted that some part of the property which was earlier
with Tenant is in the possession of Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman
in terms of order of the Delhi High Court dated 22.04.2019.
b. It is submitted that the property in question was purchased
on 20.02.1961 by Sh. Radha Raman (deceased) from his
own funds in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman for the
benefit of the family. Lt. Radha Raman is the father of Sh.
Ajay Kumar Raman and grandfather of Sh. Puneet Raman
 and Sh. Prabhat Raman. It is wrongly mentioned in the
kalandra that the property in question was only owned by
Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman. However, the property in question
is the part of Ajay Kumar Raman & Sons (HUF) which
comprises of Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar
Raman and Sh. Puneet Raman being the coparcener of the
said HUF.
c. It is wrong and denied that the petitioner no.1 has lawful
right on the property, and the respondent no 2,3,4 is in fact
trying to cause hindrances whereas the petitioners are the
once colluding with police and causing great nuisance.
d. It is denied that the due to the reasons stated in the petition
the notice u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C is liable to be quashed.

I. The contents of para are partially matter of record and partially

denied. They are as follows

a) The contents of para are matter of record and hence need no reply.
b) That the contents of para need no reply.
c) That the contents of para are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
petitioner no 1 and 2 have not been present in the premises at the
alleged date and time as they were present as alleged in the
complaint and it is not repeated for the sake of brevity.

J. The contents of para are wrong and denied that the averments in
complaint dated 18.10.2021 are completely false, concocted and
baseless.

A. It is wrong and denied that the averments made in complaint dated

 18.10.2021 filed by alleged SPA of respondent no.2 are wrong
false.
B. It is wrong and denied that the complaint is entirely concocted and
deliberately misleading to aid and abet the illegal design of
Respondent no. 2 to encroach upon the property of Petitioner no. 1
and to involve the Petitioners in a totally false and fabricated police
case in collusion with the local police which has initiated
proceedings whereas it is the collusion of petitioners with local
police to harm respondents
C. It is denied that there is neither any Special Power of Attorney
annexed along with the impugned Complaint and Kalandra nor any
verification of any such power of attorney was done by the police
and for this ground alone and her complaint is not rendered
inadmissible and can be relied upon for issuing the notice u/s
107/111 Cr.P.C. So, the impugned notice is not liable to be
quashed as such.
D. It is wrong and denied that the alleged SPA of Respondent no. 2 is
nowhere involved with the said property as on 16.10.2021, Sh.
Puneet Raman was out of Delhi and through his Power of Attorney
Holder Smt. Alpana Poddar The said complaint was filed against
Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh. Bal
Kishan Sharma and Sh. Prem thereby requesting SHO to look into
the issue.
E. It is wrong and denied that in her complaint, alleged SPA of
Respondent no. I only vaguely mentions various previous
complaints but has not annexed the same and not even whispered
about any details of such complaints, neither any such complaints
are mentioned in the police report or in the Kalandra. case against
petitioners.it is further denied that the by not being and eye witness
 to any incidents false complaints are being filed by her as for the
reasons mentioned above that are not repeated for the sake of
brevity.
F. It is submitted for the reasons above mentioned that why did the
respondent no.2 has not filed the complaint by himself as he was
out of station and that the complaint was filed through his Power of
Attorney Holder Smt. Alpana Poddar The said complaint was filed
against Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh.
Bal Kishan Sharma and Sh. Prem thereby requesting SHO to look
into the issue.
G. It is wrong and denied that there the complaint form filed with the
Kalandra in documents of this case provided to the Petitioners by
the police, her answer to whether she knows the date and time of
incident is "NO", whereas later she mentions the date of alleged
incident being 16.10.2021 which itself not contradictory and does
not expose the total falsehood and hollowness of her impugned
complaint as the petitioners are trying to make them
H. It is denied that she totally falsely claims in her complaint that
Respondent no. 3 is the "caretaker" of the property which is again a
totally false statement deliberately made to blatantly mislead the
police, as the truth is Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar
Raman and Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma have illegally deployed 16-17
unknown persons in the said property. It is further submitted that
such 16-17 persons were present on the instance of Sh. Ajay
Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal Krishan
Sharma with illegal designs and to threaten and intimidate Sh.
Pawan Kumar Rana, Caretaker of the said property including his
wife and minor child in order to illegally grab the said property.
I. It is denied that SPA of respondent no.2 while referring to two
 orders of this Hohle High Court of Delhi dated 20.12.2018 and 22
04 2019 which are both materially and substantially different and
that she has wrongfully tried to portray them as being similar and
has also misinterpreted them, which is totally incorrect and has
deliberately not even annexed these Hon'ble High Court orders
with her complaint as the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide orders
dated 20.12.2018 and 22.04.2019 passed in CS (OS) No. 657 of
2018 directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the title
and possession of the suit properties, i.e. Property bearing Nos. N-
232 & N-234, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-110048.
J. The contents of para are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
averments in the complaint dated 18.10.2021 are completely false,
concocted and baseless whereas the connotation made in the
complaint are true in entirety and nothing mentioned in the
complaint is false.
a) It is denied that the averments made in the complaint dated
18.10.2021 filed by alleged SPA of respondent no.2 are
absolutely wrong, totally false whereas as the connotation
made in the complaint are true in entirety and nothing
mentioned in the complaint is false.
b) It is denied that the complaint is entirely concocted and
deliberately misleading to aid and abet the illegal design of
Respondent no. 2 to encroach upon the property of Petitioner
no. 1 and to involve the Petitioners in a totally false and
fabricated police case in collusion with the local police
which has initiated proceedings and notice has been issued
by the Ld. SEM without even proper investigation and
inquiry, without ascertaining the truth of the facts and
without application of judicial mind and even due to the
 same, the impugned notice is unlawful and liable to be
quashed.
c) It is denied that It is submitted that here is neither any
Special Power of Attorney annexed along with the impugned
Complaint and Kalandra nor any verification of any such
power of attorney was done by the police and for this ground
alone, her complaint is rendered inadmissible and cannot be
relied upon for issuing the notice u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. So, the
impugned notice is also liable to be quashed as such
d) It is wrong and denied that the alleged SPA of Respondent
no. 2 is nowhere involved with the said property as on
16.10.2021, Sh. Puneet Raman was out of Delhi and
through his Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Alpana Poddar
The said complaint was filed against Sh. Ajay Kumar
Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh. Bal Kishan
Sharma and Sh. Prem thereby requesting SHO to look into
the issue.
e) It is wrong and denied that in her complaint, alleged SPA of
Respondent no. I only vaguely mentions various previous
complaints but has not annexed the same and not even
whispered about any details of such complaints, neither
any such complaints are mentioned in the police report or
in the Kalandra. case against petitioners.it is further denied
that the by not being and eye witness to any incidents false
complaints are being filed by her as for the reasons
mentioned above that are not repeated for the sake of
brevity.
f) It is submitted for the reasons above mentioned that why
did the respondent no .2 has not filed the complaint by
himself as he was out of station and that the complaint was
 filed through his Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Alpana
Poddar The said complaint was filed against Sh. Ajay
Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh. Bal Kishan
Sharma and Sh. Prem thereby requesting SHO to look into
the issue.
g) It is wrong and denied that there the complaint form filed
with the Kalandra in documents of this case provided to the
Petitioners by the police, her answer to whether she knows
the date and time of incident is "NO", whereas later she
mentions the date of alleged incident being 16.10.2021
which itself not contradictory and does not exposes the
total falsehood and hollowness of her impugned complaint
as the petitioners are trying to make them.
h) It is denied that she totally falsely claims in her complaint
that Respondent no. 3 is the "caretaker" of the property
which is again a totally false statement deliberately made to
blatantly mislead the police, as the truth is Sh. Ajay Kumar
Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal Krishan
Sharma have illegally deployed 16-17 unknown persons in
the said property. It is further submitted that such 16-17
persons were present on the instance of Sh. Ajay Kumar
Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal Krishan
Sharma with illegal designs and to threaten and intimidate
Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana, Caretaker of the said property
including his wife and minor child in order to illegally grab
the said property.
i) It is denied that SPA of respondent no.2 while referring to
two orders of this Hohle High Court of Delhi dated
20.12.2018 and 22 04 2019 that she has wrongfully tried
to portray them as being simlar and has also
misinterpreted them, which is totally incorrect and has
 deliberately not even annexed these Hon'ble High Court
orders with her complaint as the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi vide orders dated 20.12.2018 and 22.04.2019 passed
in CS (OS) No. 657 of 2018 directed the parties to maintain
status quo regarding the title and possession of the suit
properties, i.e. Property bearing Nos. N-232 & N-234,
Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-110048.
j) The contents of para are matter of record and need no
reply
k) It is denied that the alleged SPA of respondent no .2 has
deliberately tried to mislead the police. It is submitted that
she did request the police to provide securities to the
properties bearing Nos. N-232 and N-234, Greater Kailash
Part-I, New Delhi-110048 as on 23.10.2021, Sh. Puneet
Raman got the information from Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana,
Caretaker of the said property that Sh. Prabhat Raman, Sh.
Ajay Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal Kishan with 16 -17
unknown persons are trying to enter and take physical
possession of the said property and cause criminal
disturbances as alleged in the complaint.it is further denied
that the Respondent no. 2 is neither owner of property no.
N 232, GK-I nor of N-234, GK-I but merely in possession of
a small portion in N-232, GK-I as stated above where as,
the police authorities have ignored the fact that Sh. Ajay
Kumar Raman is the Karta of HUF known as Ajay Kumar
Raman & Sons (HUF) and in such capacity Sh. Ajay Kumar
Raman is permitted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide
order dated 22.04.2019 to take limited possession of the
said property.
l) It is denied that the complaint is invalid, not true, hollow and
likely to be quashed and as the complaint is filed by the
 SPA of respondent no .2 as alleged in the petition whereas,
respondent no .2 has not filed the complaint by himself as
he was out of station and that the complaint was filed
through his Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Alpana Poddar
The said complaint was filed against Sh. Ajay Kumar
Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh. Bal Kishan
Sharma and Sh. Prem thereby requesting SHO to look into
the issue.
m) It is denied there is any falsehoods, twisting and
concealment of material facts and making misleading
statements, along with other irregularities existing in the
impugned complaint of alleged SPA of Respondent no. 2,
even then the police have chosen to proceed on her
complaint which has already been stated as being
completely false and fabricated and in spite of this, without
ascertaining the truth and the correct facts.
n) It is denied that there was any collusion of respondent no .2
and local police to create false case against the petitioners
whereas it the collusion of petitioners with the local police
to try and frame the case against the respondents.
o) Whereas the Kalandra does not mention has any statement
of Respondent no. 3 stating that he was threatened in any
manner either by Petitioner no. 3, alone or along with other
persons, on 16.10.2021, further Respondent no. 3 who was
in the property, has also not stated so in his statement to
the police, that Petitioner no. 3 threatened him in any
manner on 16.10.2021, as has been totally falsely stated in
the false and fabricated complaint of alleged SPA of
Respondent no. 2. This very fact shows clearly that the
complaint is absolutely and totally false and concocted only
to create false police case against petitioners. In spite of
 such false complaint the police have proceeded in this
matter in collusion with
p) The current para does not place any comments regarding
respondents hence need no reply
q) It is wrong and denied that the complaint dated 18.10.2021
is totally false and fabricated, concealing & twisting relevant
facts with the sole intent to mislead the police to get a false
fabricated police case instituted against Petitioners to
harass and intimidate them, as it is quite clear to
Respondent no. 2 that he has no chance of any success in
the false and frivolous civil case filed by him which is sub
judice before this Hon'ble Court.
r) It is wrong and denied that no ID proof of the alleged SPA
of Respondent no.2 was taken or annexed along with the
Kalandra and verified by the police and is nowhere on the
record, also which is essential. Even as such the whole
proceeding is not in accordance with the law and is a totally
collusive exercise as already explained herein.
s) It is wrong and denied that The aforesaid facts clearly show
the collusion between the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with
the police. It is important to note that the statement made
by alleged SPA of Respondent No. 2 in her impugned
complaint is not in any way corroborating with the
statement made by Respondent No. 3 before the police.
This itself is a glaring example of the complete falsehood of
the entire matter.
t) It is denied that that it is the blatant attempt of SPA on
behest of respondent no .2 to get created a false fabricated
police case against the petitioners in collusion with the local
police whereas it is the petitioners who are creating false
baseless stories like such and making it difficult for
 respondent to live and that the SPA of respondent no .2 in
the alleged complaint dated 16.10.2021 mentions that on
23.10.2021, Sh. Puneet Raman got the information from
Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana, Caretaker of the said property
that Sh. Prabhat Raman, Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman and Sh.
Bal Kishan with 16 -17 unknown persons are trying to enter
and take physical possession of the said property and
cause criminal disturbance.
u)

K. It is denied that there is any an adequate and false representation in

kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C as alleged in the petition.

a) It is denied that in the Kalandra that there are several alleged

disputes between the parties and that there are no details of such
prior disputes that are referred to, nor is there any complaint as to
such disputes that have been annexed along with the Kalandra. that
it is not totally vague and untenable and is not made only with the
sole purpose and intent to fabricate a false police case against the
Petitioners.
b) It is stated that the answering Respondents have not indulged in
any quarrel with Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Prabhat Kumar Raman
and Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma which is likely to commit a breach of
peace or disturb public tranquillity or amount to any wrongful act.
In the instant case, from the sequence of events stated hereinabove,
 present proceedings against the answering Respondents need to be
set aside.
c) The content of para needs no response
d) It is submitted that no complaint has been received by the
Executive Magistrate against the answering Respondents regarding
any breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do
any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace
or disturb the public tranquillity, the answering Respondents have
without prejudice executed the personal bond to show good faith
and their bonafide in the present matter.
e) It is wrong and denied. It is denied that respondent no.2,3 and 4
themselves try to create problems and it is further denied that
Respondent no. 2 unlawfully objects to representatives of
Petitioner no. 1 in an unauthorized manner from coming to his
property and premises which is in his lawful possession. including
by lodging false police complaints like the present one whereas the
petitioners are always acting in accordance with the law. Whereas,
from a bare perusal of the said orders, it is clear that only two
persons are legally entitled to possession of the said property
namely Sh. Puneet Raman and Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, to their
respective portions of the said property. Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana,
caretaker of the said property, has been duly authorized by Sh.
Puneet Raman to enter and live in the said property with his family.
It is clear that all other persons named in the complaint besides
others are trespassers and are required to be evicted. It is also clear
from the records that Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman has not appeared
before the police authorities and the Ld. Magistrate, not given any
statement or produced any authority authorising any other person
including the said remaining persons to enter the said property or
 any part thereof.
f) It is denied that there is any collusion between respondents and the
local police and that the false implications of portioners implying
the same suggests the true nature of petitioners having colluded
with local police. Also, that, the police authorities have ignored the
fact that Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman is the Karta of HUF known as
Ajay Kumar Raman & Sons (HUF) and in such capacity Sh. Ajay
Kumar Raman is permitted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
vide order dated 22.04.2019 to take limited possession of the said
property. It is submitted that Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman has neither
been summoned nor examined till date proving the collusion of
petitioners with local police.
g) It is denied that respondents have no locus standi to object to
anyone coming to the property as it has been ignored that Sh. Ajay
Kumar Raman is the Karta of HUF known as Ajay Kumar Raman
& Sons (HUF) and in such capacity Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman is
permitted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated
22.04.2019 to take limited possession of the said property and with
reference to the trespassers of petitioners coming and creating
nuisance with criminal intent as alleged in the complaint is true.
h) The current para needs no reply.
i) The current para needs no reply
j) The contents of para need no reply

L. That the contents of para are wrong and denied as follows,

a) From a bare perusal of the contents of Complaint dated 23.10.2018,

letter to DCP dated 28.06.2021, Complaint dated 05.07.2021,
Complaint dated 18.10.2021, Complaint and PCR call dated
 23.10.2021 as well as stay orders dated 20.12.2018 and 22.04.2019
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it is evident that the
facts have been completely ignored and distorted in the present
matter. It is submitted that from the sequence of events stated
herein above, it becomes abundantly clear that the answering
Respondents have not indulged in any quarrel with Sh. Ajay
Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman, Sh. Arvind Tripathi,
Sh. Punee Chand and Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma but are in fact only
defending their lawful rights and property against the illegal
conduct of the said persons. It is also submitted that Sh. Ajay
Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal Krishan
Sharma have illegally deployed 16-17 unknown persons in the said
property. It is further submitted that such 16-17 persons were
present on the instance of Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman, Sh. Prabhat
Kumar Raman and Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma with illegal designs
and to threaten and intimidate Sh. Pawan Kumar Rana, Caretaker
of the said property including his wife and minor child in order to
illegally grab the said property.
b) It is denied that the Respondent no. 2, has neither been given
possession of the whole property in question nor has he been made
any caretaker or security in charge of the same by this Hon'ble
Court and his possession is limited to the small area defined by this
Hon'ble Court. Therefore, Respondent no. 2 or his representatives
cannot in any way object to any representative of Petitioner no. 1 to
enter or come to the property which is in lawful possession of
Petitioner No. 1, for any purpose.
c) It is denied that only Petitioner no. 1 has the lawful right to object
to any person coming to the property as it not only belongs to him
as its absolute, lawful and registered owner but is also in his lawful
 possession as per aforesaid order of this Hon'ble Court. Attempts
of Respondent no. 2 through his representatives/ servants to
encroach upon the area outside the small portion in the property in
his possession, which is clearly defined in the aforesaid order dated
22.04.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court, is totally unlawful and
cannot be allowed.
d) It is denied that the Whenever any such attempt to encroach upon
the area in lawful possession of Petitioner No.1 is objected to by
the representatives of Petitioner no. 1, the Respondent nos. 2, 3 and
4 try to turn it into a false police case against the petitioners in
collusion with the local police as is done in the present matter to
involve them in a false and fabricated case as the allegations made
by respondents towards the petitioner are true in nature.
e) It is denied that there were any plants planted on the instructions of
respondent no.2.
f) It is wrong and denied that respondent no.4 made any calls saying
that she will not allow him or anyone in the premises it is further
denied that there was any false allegation made in the complaint
and in the police case and it is also denied that there was any
collusion between respondents and the police to harass and
intimidate the petitioner .it is also denied that the respondent no .2
instructed his guard to call the police and that there was any false
statement made to police. It is also denied that the petitioners did
not visit the property on 23.10.2021 whereas it was the illegal
designs of the portioner to cause suffering to respondents and that
they were present at the alleged property on the said date.
g) It is denied that the petitioner did not threaten the respondent no .3
and the allegation made by petitioner in this para is entirely false
and fictious.
h) It is denied that only petitioners can allow or disallow anyone
entering the property as respondent no .2 Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman
is the Karta of HUF known as Ajay Kumar Raman & Sons (HUF)
and in such capacity Sh. Ajay Kumar Raman is permitted by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 22.04.2019 to take
limited possession of the said property.
i) It is denied that there is any collusion between respondents and
local police whereas, from the facts stated above it is clear that
petitioners are colluding with local police and not the opposite.
j) It is denied that the respondent no .2 called the police on
30.06.2021
k) The contents of para need no reply

M. The contents of para are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
additional grounds and the notice is liable to be quashed

a) That the contents of para need no reply

b) That the contents of para need no reply
c) It is denied that the petitioners are falsely implicated by the
respondents to wreck vengeance and involve them in fabricated
police case for sole purpose of harassing the petitioners and
intimidating them by abuse of machinery of law and that the
respondents are in collusion with the police whereas there is
collusion of petitioners with local police and for the reasons
explained above that are not repeated for the sake of brevity.
d) The contents of para are denied as the wrongdoing are on the part
of petitioners as alleged in the complained and explained above
and the injustice is being done to respondents herein by preventing
them from exercising their lawful rights.
 e) It is denied that if the proceeding is allowed to be continued and
that this will be abuse of power.
f) The contents of para are matter of record hence need no reply
g) The contents of para are wrong and denied. It is denied that
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all
h) The contents of para are denied that petitioners are law abiding
citizens and have deep roots in society
i) It is denied that the petitioners will face irreparable loss, harm and
grave prejudice and injury in case the notice u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. is
not quashed

13.The contents of para are matter of record and need no reply

14.The contents are wrong and denied as it is denied that proceedings against
petitioners are abuse of power of law as for the reasons mentioned above
which are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

15.It is denied that the present petition is made bona fide in interest of justice

16.It is denied that the petitioners have no alternative remedy but to invoke
inherent jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

17.The contents are matter of record and hence need no reply.

18.The contents of para are matter of record hence need no reply.

Reply to prayer clause

 1. The contents of prayer are denied that there is no need to Quash the
Notice u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. dated 05.12.2021 issued by the Ld. SEM,
South District, New Delhi, arising out of Kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C.
vide DD entry no. 62A/2021 dated 02.11.2021 P.S. Greater Kailash- I,
New Delhi 110048 and the proceedings/inquiries/investigation / orders
arising thereafter;
2. To not pass any necessary orders for strict action to be initiated as per
law and direct to register FIR against all such persons who have made
false statements and deliberately concealed material facts and made
statements to mislead the law enforcement authorities and those who have
colluded with such persons to fabricate a false case against the petitioners
and to wrongfully exploit the judicial system, with a view to harass and
intimidate the petitioners to try to prevent them from exercising their
lawful rights; and
3. To not Pass any such order (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the ends of justice.
4. That the prayer clause is denied being untenable and unsubstantiated. It is
submitted that the present suit be dismissed with heavy cost and in favour
of the defendants.

PRAYER

In the view of aforesaid facts and circumstances most respectfully prayed that
the Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to:

1. Outrightly dismiss the petition with exemplary costs on basis of the above
claimed facts that are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
2. Not to pass any orders favouring petitioners as it will be great prejudice
towards the defendants and should be dismissed with costs.
3. Pass any other orders or direction that the Hon’ble Court deems fit in
light of justice, equity and in good conscience.

IN THE MATTER OF:

AJAY KUMAR RAMAN &

ORS. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) &
ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
 AFFIDAVIT
I_______aged______________about_____years,
S/o________________________________, R/o
___________________________________________

1. It is submitted that I am the Authorised Representative of the Respondent

and I am fully aware of the circumstances of the present case and duly
competent to swear and depose as under.
2. It is submitted that I have gone through the petition filed by plaintiff,
unless specifically admitted hereunder, each and every allegation made
therein is denied and is false and that the reply filed has been drafted
under my instructions and explained to me in vernacular language.
3. It is submitted that there is no false statement or concealment of any
material facts, document or record.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
Verified at ___________on this ___________that the contents of the
aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge and no material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT