CRL M .C. 6793 /2025 Page 1 of 5 $~ 98 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 22nd September, 2025 + CRL. M .C. 6793/2025 KRISHAN DEV BHARAL ...Petitioner Through: M r.Prem Prakash , Advocates. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELH I AND ORS. ..Respondent s Through: M s. Richa Dhawan, AP for State with SI Salman Ahmed, PS Huaz Khas CORAM : HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE ARUN M ONGA ARUN M ONGA , J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 pased by the Sub -Divisional M agistrate, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and consequently an earlier order dated 19.02.1998 passed by the Sub - Divisional M agistrate (Defense Colony) is also sought to be set aside. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that t KHSHWLWLRQHU¶ Shri Bhader Sain, was in possession of Property No. 103 -D, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi, which he used for cultural and religious activities. In 1998, on the basis of a false complaint filed by Shri M .R. Gulati (attorney of Smt. Prakash Sood), the property was sealed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. without properly hearing Bhader Sain. 3. Subsequently, Smt. Prakash Sood filed a possession suit, but it was CRL M .C. 6793 /2025 Page 2 of 5 dismissed by the ADJ on 04.07.2018. The dismissal was upheld by the Delhi High Court on 06.01.2023, confirming tha t Smt. Sood had no right, title, or interest in the property. 4. Despite these rulings, the property remains sealed. The petitioner wrote to the SDM on 08.02.2023, but no action was taken. The petitioner then filed Crl. M .C. No. 4089/2023, and the Delhi High Court on 15.04.2025 directed the SDM to decide the de -sealing application within four weks. 5. The petitioner states that possession of property was wrongly taken from his father and should have be en restored to him . However, the SDM rejected the application , did not order de -sealing, and did not hand over possession to the petitioner, leaving him deprived of the property for over 25 years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed by the Ld. S.D.M . is liable to be set -aside and quashed, inter alia, on the ground that the SDM failed to appreciate the quasi -civil nature of procedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which are limited to determining possession as on the relevant date. At the time of the false complaint by Respondent 1R¶V SUHG HFHVVRU SRVVHVVLRQ ZDV ZLWK father), and hence the SDM ought to have de -sealed and restored the property. 6.1 He argues that t KH SRVVHVVLRQ VXLW ILOH predecessor was dismissed, proving they had no title. De spite this, the SDM LJQRUHGGRFXPHQWVVKRZLQJ%KDGHU6 by indirectly deciding title, and continued to kep the property sealed unlawfully since 19.02.1998. 6.2 7KH6'0¶VRUGHULVPHFKDQLFDO and